…without informed consent.

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    20 hours ago

    This is a good post.

    Thinking about it some more, I don’t necessarily mind if someone said “I googled it and…” then provides some self generated summary of what they found which is relevant to the discussion.

    I wouldn’t mind if someone did the same with an LLM response. But just like I don’t want to read a copy and paste of chatgpt results I don’t want to read someone copy/pasting search results with no human analysis.

    • belit_deg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I have a few colleagues that are very skilled and likeable people, but have horrible digital etiquette (40-50 year olds).

      Expecting people to read regurgitated gpt-summaries are the most obvious.

      But another one that bugs me just as much, are sharing links with no annotation. Could be a small article or a long ass report or white paper with 140 pages. Like, you expect me to bother read it, but you can’t bother to say what’s relevant about it?

      I genuinely think it’s well intentioned for the most part. They’re just clueless about what makes for good digital etiquette.

    • Almacca@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      17 hours ago

      If you’re going to use an LLM, at least follow the links it provides to the source of what they output. You really need to check their work.