Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 9457570" data-attributes="member: 75787">Definitely, yes. In my organization, we have a number of rules covering AI usage. One is that AI output must always be reviewed by a person, and another is that ownership and responsibility for the results is by the person using the tool, not the tool itself. So, basically, if you use an AI and it makes a mistake, you are responsible for it.On the other hand, that is generally true for people also. If I have a colleague prepare a slide deck for a presentation, and it has a factual error in it, then I am responsible for that deck. People make errors and we have guards and checks for them also. Where GenAI is currently safest to use is in an advisory capacity. It is least likely to give errors when it has fine tuning on a domain, or when it uses an indexed search into known facts from that domain. But, just like you or I, it’s always going to make some mistakes and we need to guard against them.In my work, we don’t consider AIs as a way to get answers. We consider it primarily as a tool to save time — getting started on a letter, providing a summary of 100,000 words of accumulated reports, suggesting when some text contains specific language we want to detect. For this thread, the AI I adapted to tell me about The One Ring is pretty untrustworthy. I correct one-two facts every time I copy a block of output into my notes — but it takes me half the time to check and fix than it would to write from scratch. In a real-world application, it can do much better. In a recent study I helped with, it disagreed with experts at about the rate they disagreed with each other. So, yes, absolutely, don’t trust AI output. But also, don’t write them off because they aren’t perfect. Sometimes “mostly right” is pretty damn useful.</blockquote>

Verification