Comment on What Was Grammarly Thinking?
MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 3 days ago
Ridiculous that Grammarly even attempted to do this. The article was good, but at the end, though they hedged, they fell into the same trap everyone seems to. AI is not better at coding than it is at writing and their tinkering with this does not suggest that. Grammarly had a bad product, but realistically, there was likely just no effort put into this aspect of the software. Maybe I’m way off base, and I don’t support AI either way, but I just think it was a poor way to end the article. Programmers think it’s good for art, artists think it’s good for programming, it’s almost like it’s easier to see flaws in a field you’re familiar with.
Kichae@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
AI is always great at things I don’t know how to do, and right about things I don’t know about, but bad at the things I know how to do (often in ways that are subtle but ultimately catastrophic), and wrong about the things I know about (often in ways that are sneaky or nuanced, but which lead to gross misunderstandings).
Not sure how they managed to tune it to me, *n particular, so precisely, but those geniuses working on it sure do know their stuff!
/s
MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 2 days ago
What a completely accurate description. The nuance of the issues being subtle yet catastrophic is always the part that I find the funniest, because how are they so incapable of seeing how that might be a universal issue? Thank you for the chuckle.