[zephen]

Look, I'm generally considered AI's most vociferous detractor.

But...

> there is no way to tell if you are using it "correctly".

This simply isn't true, at least in cases like this.

I know common sense isn't really all that common, but why would you give more credence to an untested tool than an untested crack-addled human informant?

The entire point of the informant, or the AI in this instance, is to generate leads. Which subsequently need to be checked.

[jqpabc123]

There is no "correct" way to use AI in order to avoid bad results. The only prudent approach is to assume all results are bad until proven otherwise.

But this approach negates much of the incentive to pay for questionable results.

[zephen]

> The only prudent approach is to assume all results are bad until proven otherwise.

As is true with results from people.

> But this approach negates much of the incentive to pay for questionable results.

I'm not sure that follows. Even the crack-addled human informant has always been paid for questionable results.

[jqpabc123]

As is true with results from people.

People as untrustworthy as AI often fail to maintain their jobs.