@neil This! Exactly the same in the translation field. "Could you just...". Re-casting and correcting the whole thing takes twice as long.

@neil Hear hear. My OH, a fairly niche discipline sports writer with ~20 years experience and in depth knowledge of the field was recently asked to write a piece, and then to “ask ChatGPT to rewrite it in the style of a sports writer”. I can’t even …
It’s a race to the bottom and I absolutely hate it.

@neil ha, I've had people ask me to review without mentioning the llm involved. The worst!

@neil this is my argument against most use of "AI" but seemingly almost nobody is listening.

It's always quicker to do a complete re-write.

@neil chatgpt the other day

generate me a config snippet for X

Add 4 spaces to the start of each line

Proceeds to miss out a load of the config it generated moments ago

Prime example of why you can’t blindly trust it

@neil I’ll make a note to use Claude instead of ChatGPT before I ask you to review it then 😜

@neil OMG, yes!
The fact that ChatGPT manages to be not wrong but also not *quite* right, makes it so tedious to rework it :-/

@neil my general experience is that the only way to know if a short generated email by chatGPT is appropriate is still to consider what I would actually write/explain and then compare to what chatgpt said. At that point I could have just written the email myself.

@neil
This brings to mind Pauli's review of a particularly poor physics paper: "It's not even wrong."

@neil Happily this hasn't happened to me yet. Although I have had several vendors on the other side proudly present terms that were clearly created by an LLM. And yes, it takes *ages* to sort them out and make them fit for purpose.