Lord, we're how many years into using LLMs, and people still don't understand that their whole shtick is to produce the most plausible output - not the most correct output?
The most plausible output might be correct, or it might be utter bullshit hallucinations that only sound correct; the only way to tell is to actually try it or cross-reference primary sources. Unless you do, the AI answer is worthless.
The reason why they're getting so good at code now is that they can check their output by running and testing it; if you're just prompting questions into a chatbot and then copying their output verbatim to a comment, you're not adding any meaningful value.
Exactly! This is what LLMs do: they bullshit you by coming across as extremely knowledgeable, but as soon as you understand 5% of the topic you realise you've been blatantly lied to.
Even if you get 70% blatant lies and 30% helpful ideas, if you can cheaply distinguish the two due to domain expertise, is that not still an extremely useful tool?
But to the point of this thread: If you can't validate their output at all, why would you choose to share it? This was even recently added to this site's guidelines, I believe.
But then why make this comment at all, even despite the disclaimer? Anyone can prompt an LLM. What's your contribution to the conversation?
To be clear, I use LLMs to gut check ideas all the time, but the absolute minimum required to share their output, in my view, is verification (can you vouch for the generated answer based on your experience or understanding), curation (does this output add anything interesting to the conversation people couldn't have trivially prompted themselves and are missing in their comments), and adding a disclaimer if you're at all unsure about either (thanks for doing that).
But you can't skip any of these, or you're just spreading slop.
