Post AXldUUqQdFuGSRZm0e by bhaggart@mastodon.social
 (DIR) More posts by bhaggart@mastodon.social
 (DIR) Post #AXldUUqQdFuGSRZm0e by bhaggart@mastodon.social
       2023-07-16T22:10:38Z
       
       0 likes, 1 repeats
       
       The belief that individual expertise is enough to verify that ChatGPT et al output is scientifically valid (as in this article) is simultaneously hubristic and anti-science.Written academic output is validated not just (or mainly) by individual expertise but through citations built on citations: scientific chain of custody. Cites are also a check against individual bias. Absent these, you're left relying on LLM output verified because it sounds good to you.https://slate.com/technology/2023/07/chatgpt-class-prompt-engineering.html
       
 (DIR) Post #AXldUZpC7GtFu42MHQ by bhaggart@mastodon.social
       2023-07-16T22:14:49Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       I mean, the attitude that "I'm an expert in X, so I can confirm that this probabilistically generated text is accurate" just screams "confirmation bias."