LLMs, and everyone who uses them to process information:

Facts are not a data type for LLMs

I kind of like this because it highlights the way LLMs operate kind of blind and drunk, they're just really good at predicting the next word.

ATTN: If you're coming into this thread to say, "The output of AI is bad because your prompts suck," I'm just proud that you managed to figure out how to use the internet at all. Good job, you!

Well, to be fair, AI can do it in seconds. Which beats humans.

But if that is relevant if the results are worthless is another question.

I had GPT 3.5 break down 6x 45-minute verbatim interviews into bulleted summaries and it did great. I even asked it to anonymize people’s names and it did that too. I did re-read the summaries to make sure no duplicate info or hallucinations existed and it only needed a couple of corrections.

Beats manually summarizing that info myself.

Maybe their prompt sucks?

Made strange choices about what to highlight.

They certainly do. For a while it was common to see AI-generated summaries under links to articles on lemmy, so I got a feel for them. Seems to me you would not need any fancy artificial intelligence to do equally well: Just take random excerpts, or maybe just read every third sentence.

how the hell did this of all the posts turn into a promptfondler shooting gallery

i have seen the light from the helpful posters here, made up bullshit alleged summaries of documents are great actually

Could it be because a statistical relation isn't the same as a semantic one? No, I must be prompting it wrong. I'll just add "engineer" to my title and then everyone will take me seriously.

You could use them to know what the text is about, and if it's worth your reading time. In this situation, it's fine if the AI makes shit up, as you aren't reading its output for the information itself anyway; and the distinction between summary and shortened version becomes moot.

However, here's the catch. If the text is long enough to warrant the question "should I spend my time reading this?", it should contain an introduction for that very purpose. In other words if the text is well-written you don't need this sort of "Gemini/ChatGPT, tell me what this text is about" on first place.

EDIT: I'm not addressing documents in this. My bad, I know. [In my defence I'm reading shit in a screen the size of an ant.]

Is it only me, or is the linked article not super long on details & is reaching a conclusion from 2 examples? This is important & I need to hear more, & I’m generally biased against AI at this point— but the article isn’t doing enough to convince me