[cm2012]

I couldn't disagree more. Its like someone going to Wikipedia to helpfully copy and paste a summary of an issue. Fast and with a good enough level of accuracy.

Generally the AI summaries I see are more topical and accurate than the many other comments in the thread.

[lysace]

They are mostly posturing.

I don't see any problem sharing a human-reviewed LLM output.

(I also figure that human review may not be that necessary in a few years.)

[mook]

But it's the human review that makes it not rude; not bothering to review means you're wasting the other person's time. If they wanted a chatbot response they could have went to the LLM directly.

It's like pointing to a lmgtfy link. That's _intentionally_ rude, in that it's normally used when the question isn't worth the thought. That's what pasting a chatbot response says.

[cm2012]

This I agree with as well 100%.

[lysace]

Agreed.

[Velorivox]

Really!?

[0] https://i.imgur.com/ly5yk9h.png

[cm2012]

You shouldn't compare against perfection, but against reality. ChatGPT o3 has been proven to outperform even experts on knowledge tasks quite a bit.

In general it raises the mean accuracy and info of a given thread.

Its like self driving cars.