this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
1844 points (99.7% liked)

People Twitter

6385 readers
1029 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tacobellhop@midwest.social 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Youre still doing it by hand to verify in any scientific capacity. I only use ChatGPT for philosophical hypotheticals involving the far future. We’re both wrong but it’s fun for the back and forth.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

It is not true in general that verifying output for a science-related prompt requires doing it by hand, where "doing it by hand" means putting in the effort to answer the prompt manually without using AI.

[–] tacobellhop@midwest.social 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

You can get pretty in the weeds with conversions on ChatGPT in the chemistry world or even just basic lab work where a small miscalculation at scale can cost thousands of dollars or invite lawsuits.

I check against actual calibrated equipment as a verification final step.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I said not true in general. I don't know much about chemistry. It may be more true in chemistry.

Coding is different. In many situations it can be cheap to test or eyeball the output.

Crucially, in nearly any subject, it can give you leads. Nobody expects every lead to pan out. But leads are hard to find.

[–] tacobellhop@midwest.social 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I imagine ChatGPT and code is a lot like air and water.

Both parts are in the other part. Meaning llm is probably more native at learning reading and writing code than it is at interpreting engineering standards worldwide and allocation the exact thread pitch for a bolt you need to order thousands of. Go and thread one to verify.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

This is possibly true due to the bias of the people who made it. But I reject the notion that because ChatGPT is made of code per se that it must understand code better than other subjects. Are humans good at biology for this reason?

[–] tacobellhop@midwest.social 1 points 16 hours ago

You might know better than me. If you ask ChatGPT to write the code for itself I have no way to verify it. You would.