@mahler123 - what kind of testing was done to arrive at this '80%' of medical queries are factually wrong? It would seem that humans would have to go through all the medical queries on every AI platform and analyze the query and the response. And I assume you mean 'verify the source of AI responses', as AI sites are such things as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and others; they're not in hiding.
Should AI generated posts be banned or otherwise regulated?
I just wonder.
At least, when I start a new thread, I am expecting other people's opinions. I can get my own AI response so I am not sure why others would repeat what I can do myself.
If someone were to have access to some better AI than I have access to, I guess that would be useful info I could not otherwise get. But in general, I wonder why posters think responding with AI content is useful to someone who can get that directly themselves.
- ...
- 119 posts total
@hilde45 + 1 - I guess 'AGR' stands for 'Audiogoner'? @ticat + 1 - AI has been incredibly useful for me in research about anything (it's a good starting point to begin followup research), photography (explaining how to do various things in Photoshop and cleaning up dust and scratches, and removing distractions that I do not want there - it saves an enormous amount of time from doing it manually. I often have to iteratively modify my prompts as I go along, but that's how it works - garbage in, garbage out equally applies to prompts. It's also constantly improving at a very fast clip; new version of ChatGPT just came out last week with vastly improved image-generating abilities. I like to be able to think of something I'd like to see, wild though it may be, still or video, write prompts to try to achieve it, and see the results as I go along. I don't use it for writing emails or novels, though given certain input, I may want it to put it together graphically, and I will use it for help in creating logos or setting up web pages. People seem to either be against the whole concept or embrace it as a tool. I'm in the latter camp. |
In my experience, AI has been mostly spot-on related to the sonic signature of audio equipment that I own, have owned, or have heard and am considering trying in my system. However, like other things, it is simply a tool. I wouldn’t use any one platform to base buying decisions on, including audio reviews, manufacturer information, or these forums where much of what gets posted is a parade of whatever gear or cables that others own. Occasionally, when my knowledge base or fact checks indicate that the AI answer is wrong, I call it out and receive a response like, "yes, you are correct..." and then a discussion including the correct answer. If anything, I feel a little guilty using AI because of all the computing power and associated energy it sucks up. I believe we are in a phase where promoters are trying to generate interest and new users before starting to somehow charge for it. |
Please verify the validity of this statement and provide reliable sources for this disclaimer. Some self-identified AGRs (AudioGoneRs) tend to scrutinize AI critically, but may apply less consistent standards when evaluating their own community’s claims, sometimes making assertions without clear justification.
Lawyers may be fired for providing false evidence or malpractice, regardless of whether the source is AI or not. One cannot testify in court using AI-generated evidence. Simulated crashworthiness cannot be presented in court as evidence for crash investigations. |
- 119 posts total