TechTakes

1435 readers

77 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

dgerard@awful.systems

262

Don’t use AI to summarize documents — it’s worse than humans in every way (pivot-to-ai.com)

submitted 2 months ago by dgerard@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems

104 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (19 children)

You could use them to know what the text is about, and if it's worth your reading time. In this situation, it's fine if the AI makes shit up, as you aren't reading its output for the information itself anyway; and the distinction between summary and shortened version becomes moot.

However, here's the catch. If the text is long enough to warrant the question "should I spend my time reading this?", it should contain an introduction for that very purpose. In other words if the text is well-written you don't need this sort of "Gemini/ChatGPT, tell me what this text is about" on first place.

EDIT: I'm not addressing documents in this. My bad, I know. [In my defence I'm reading shit in a screen the size of an ant.]

[–] V0ldek@awful.systems 6 points 2 months ago

if the text is well-written you don’t need this sort of “Gemini/ChatGPT, tell me what this text is about” on first place.

And if it's badly written then the LLM will shit itself.

Now let's ask ourselves how much of the text in the world is "well-written"?

Or even better, you could apply this to Copilot. How much code in the world is good code? The answer is fucking none, mate.

load more comments (18 replies)