upvote
deleted
reply
That's the problem.

People no longer understand Accountability.

If I sign off on something; no matter how it was made, it's my ass on the line. If I trust a shyster, and sign off on junk, then I walk the plank, not the shyster.

Legal people have known this for hundreds of years, but tech people seem to have forgotten it.

TL;DR: the process matters less than the result (although good results come from good processes). If someone is known for reliably producing good results, then their personal brand becomes a valuable currency. Classic stuff.

The tech industry has become so tied up with producing junk, that it has atrophied its sense of integrity.

reply
>People no longer understand Accountability

A fish rots from the head. The increase in recording and reporting has shown us the people at the top are rarely held accountable and make billions doing so. Why follow the rules if it's going to financially harm you. It's every industry.

reply
Funny, there's been quite a few incidents where AI has made up case citations in briefs submitted by attorneys and then the same attorney submitted a LLM generated brief with similar errors when asked to defend themselves from sanctions.
reply
deleted
reply
"it's ok when _I_ use LLMs"

edit: you're making literally the same argument that Provost Santiago Schnell is quoted as making in the article, and the entire article is dedicated to dismantling it. Please have a read.

reply
Nope. Try again.

[EDIT:] I did read it (it's fairly...prolix).

It appears that you might benefit from giving the ol' Ts and Cs of this site a quick shufti. I'm pretty sure that I remember them mentioning "did you read the article" as a Bozo no-no.

I specifically mentioned that I use LLMs in my work (which was what he was writing about, anyway), and, as you would expect, it got a few moldy tomatoes thrown my way.

reply