But if the output has issues, what’re you going to do, prompt it again? If you are only able to verify but not do the task, you cannot correct the AI’s mistakes yourself.
If you’re unable to brute-force verification (research, testing, consulting the ancient texts), there’s where you stop what you’re doing, and take a breath. Then, consult an expert. Just like the film critic analogy, it’s easier to verify than to create, so you’re saving the expert time and effort while learning about something that you were obviously already passionate enough about to have started this endeavor.
As someone who codes, I specifically didn’t say “always” because of course it’s not always true. Especially in the cases of “garbage in, garbage out.”
But there’s still an argument to be made for mental load and context, for which I’d argue that planning solutions and then writing the code generally is more taxing than someone handing you suggested solutions with semi-complete code or pseudo-code, and then identifying road blocks.
On the other hand, if someone you trust unexpectedly hands you hallucinated garbage, then you’re likely to spin your wheels trying to identify what they did.
At the risk of sounding like an overly obsequious AI… You know what, you’re completely right. I’m honestly not sure what use case I was imagining when I wrote that last comment.
You were thinking logically about a normal production chain. In that case, QA or whoever says “This is wrong, rework it and correct the issue” and that’s that. With AI, it does the whole thing over again and may or may not come back with the same issue or an entirely new one.
Making text flow naturally, grouping and ordeeing information, good writing.
You can verify two textst have the same facts and information, yet one reads way better than the other. But writing a text that reads well is quite hard.
But if the output has issues, what’re you going to do, prompt it again? If you are only able to verify but not do the task, you cannot correct the AI’s mistakes yourself.
If you’re unable to brute-force verification (research, testing, consulting the ancient texts), there’s where you stop what you’re doing, and take a breath. Then, consult an expert. Just like the film critic analogy, it’s easier to verify than to create, so you’re saving the expert time and effort while learning about something that you were obviously already passionate enough about to have started this endeavor.
As someone who codes, it’s not always easier to verify than to create.
As someone who codes, I specifically didn’t say “always” because of course it’s not always true. Especially in the cases of “garbage in, garbage out.”
But there’s still an argument to be made for mental load and context, for which I’d argue that planning solutions and then writing the code generally is more taxing than someone handing you suggested solutions with semi-complete code or pseudo-code, and then identifying road blocks.
On the other hand, if someone you trust unexpectedly hands you hallucinated garbage, then you’re likely to spin your wheels trying to identify what they did.
At the risk of sounding like an overly obsequious AI… You know what, you’re completely right. I’m honestly not sure what use case I was imagining when I wrote that last comment.
You were thinking logically about a normal production chain. In that case, QA or whoever says “This is wrong, rework it and correct the issue” and that’s that. With AI, it does the whole thing over again and may or may not come back with the same issue or an entirely new one.
Making text flow naturally, grouping and ordeeing information, good writing.
You can verify two textst have the same facts and information, yet one reads way better than the other. But writing a text that reads well is quite hard.
I can’t draw, but I could probably photoshop out some minor issues in an AI-generated image.
If you don’t habe the ability then you would do what you would have 5 years ago: not do it
Either submit without, or not submit at all.