• tacobellhop@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Youre still doing it by hand to verify in any scientific capacity. I only use ChatGPT for philosophical hypotheticals involving the far future. We’re both wrong but it’s fun for the back and forth.

    • jsomae@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      It is not true in general that verifying output for a science-related prompt requires doing it by hand, where “doing it by hand” means putting in the effort to answer the prompt manually without using AI.

      • tacobellhop@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        You can get pretty in the weeds with conversions on ChatGPT in the chemistry world or even just basic lab work where a small miscalculation at scale can cost thousands of dollars or invite lawsuits.

        I check against actual calibrated equipment as a verification final step.

        • jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I said not true in general. I don’t know much about chemistry. It may be more true in chemistry.

          Coding is different. In many situations it can be cheap to test or eyeball the output.

          Crucially, in nearly any subject, it can give you leads. Nobody expects every lead to pan out. But leads are hard to find.

          • tacobellhop@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            I imagine ChatGPT and code is a lot like air and water.

            Both parts are in the other part. Meaning llm is probably more native at learning reading and writing code than it is at interpreting engineering standards worldwide and allocation the exact thread pitch for a bolt you need to order thousands of. Go and thread one to verify.

            • jsomae@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              This is possibly true due to the bias of the people who made it. But I reject the notion that because ChatGPT is made of code per se that it must understand code better than other subjects. Are humans good at biology for this reason?

              • tacobellhop@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                You might know better than me. If you ask ChatGPT to write the code for itself I have no way to verify it. You would.