this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
191 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

59211 readers
2519 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
191
When ChatGPT summarises, it actually does nothing of the kind (ea.rna.nl)
submitted 3 months ago by BlackEco@lemmy.blackeco.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Thorry84@feddit.nl 32 points 3 months ago (3 children)

At a consulting job I did recently they got an AI for a specific task to have an 25% rejection rate. Which I thought was pretty good and the team working on it said there was no way they could do better, this is the absolute best.

So they went and asked the customers if they would be interested in this feature and how much they would be willing to pay. The response was nobody was willing to pay at all for the feature and a 25% rejection rate was too high.

The reason customers gave was this meant they still need a human to check the results, so the human is still in the loop. And because the human basically has to do most of if not all of the work to check the result, it didn't really save that much time. And knowing their people, they will probably slack on the checks, since most are correct. Which then leads to incorrect data going forward. This was simply not something customers wanted, they want to replace the humans and have it do better, not worse.

And paying for it is out of the question, because so many companies are offering AI for free or close to free. Plus they see it as a cost saving measure and paying for it means it has to save even more time for it to be worth.

So they put the project on ice for now, hoping the technology improves. The next customer poll they did, AI was the most requested feature. This caused some grumbles.

[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago

I think the best way to use "AI" for work, is together with a human to improve output of that human, because the human learned the skill on how to use "AI" to work more efficiently. This is happening at my workplace right now. More and more coworkers are learning when it is the right moment to start writing a prompt.

I see a future (or maybe I hope), where a brilliant mind finds an efficient way to train "AI" by just working with it and get so efficient that we can have more time for us..

We gotta fight for that, I think

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

I think a lot of people will have to learn the hard way that AI isn't what it's cracked up to be.

[–] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Saving this comment for posterior

[–] computergeek125@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

Why would I save something for posterity when I could save it for posterior?