Comment on Yes, yes they are

• TheSambassador@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  You’ll find that most people on Lemmy are not super keen on AI, and using an AI summary to back up your points will pretty much universally be met with ridicule.

  I personally think it’s dangerous to use AI as a fact checker. It might be great a lot of the time, but you’re basically deciding that you’re fine with the random data and facts that it completely fabricates. To that end, “asking an AI if you’re right” is NOT functionally equivalent to “making sure you’re right.”

  source

  • voodooattack@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Oh. I think there’s a misunderstanding here. I don’t ask for a single instance’s opinion on the epistemic correctness of my ideas.

    Depending on the problem, I ask for one of the following:

    • computational proof if applicable (the skill in question triggers its own audit/code review)
    • evidence backed by citations and a rational synthesis session (meta-cognitive skill)
    • an adversarial design session (meta-cognitive skill that teaches instances to argue for and against their own beliefs)
    • a full triggering of a (possibly distributed) schemata session (another meta-cognitive skill that orchestrates multiple smaller ones, expensive on the token budget and I can’t currently afford it)
    • Neckbearding (ditto, but with a Cartesian product matrix of questions vs answers, ultrarationalist style)

    source