[hi_hi]

Because maybe you want to, but you have a boss breathing down your neck and KPIs to meet and you haven't slept properly in days and just need a win, so you get the AI to put together some impressive looking graphs and stats that will look impressive in that client showcase thats due in a few hours.

Things aren't quite so black and white in reality.

[dauhak]

I mean those same conditions already just lead the human to cutting corners and making stuff up themselves. You're describing the problem where bad incentives/conditions lead to sloppy work, that happens with or without AI

Catching errors/validating work is obviously a different process when they're coming from an AI vs a human, but I don't see how it's fundamentally that different here. If the outputs are heavily cited then that might go someway into being able to more easily catch and correct slip-ups

[tikhonj]

Making it easier and cheaper to cut corners and make stuff up will result in more cut corners and more made up stuff. That's not good.

Same problem I have with code models, honestly. We already have way too much boilerplate and bad code; machines to generate more boilerplate and bad code aren't going to help.

[mquander]

The technology also makes it easier and cheaper to make good things, so the direction of the outcome isn't guaranteed.

[hi_hi]

Yep, I agree with this to some extent, but I think the difference in the future is all that stress will be bypassed and people will reach for the AI from the start.

Previously there was alot of stress/pressure which might or might not have led to sloppy work (some consultants are of a high quality). With this, there will be no stress which will (always?) lead to sloppy work. Perhaps there's an argument for the high quality consultants using the tools to produce accurate and high quality work. There will obviously be a sliding scale here. Time will tell.

I'd wager the end result will be sloppy work, at scale :-)