@kgf @EndlessMason @icing yeah of course, so that is the change. But non-it people do not know these flaws. They don't know (or ignore) how LLMs work. They also don't know how Photoshop works.
How do we evaluate this then?
D
dbof@infosec.exchange
@dbof@infosec.exchange
Posts
-
When I get a report which is obviously LLM output, I do not read it. -
When I get a report which is obviously LLM output, I do not read it.@EndlessMason @icing often we blame the users, sometimes the tools!
"Oh, you got hacked? You're to blame!"
"the spreadsheet calculated the wrong value"In IT we always assume the computer does exactly the thing you tell it to do so it is never "wrong", you just put the wrong input out used or wrong. Yes, programs have bugs, but that is introduced by humans.
So should we blame humans for computer / algorithm / llm output? It's not so clear cut in my opinion.
-
When I get a report which is obviously LLM output, I do not read it.@icing well I just wrote a rant about this. How can I react to mistakes made with or using AI? Can we always blame the person, or should we blame the AI companies for that?
What can I reasonably enforce as a "conversational norm", now that AI written mails and documents are becoming the norm? I do not want to rant and argue every time I get AI Slop sent to me..
-
Welcher normale IT-Studierende geht in einer Reverse Engineering Übung davon aus, dass man nicht ein Programm analysieren, sondern einfach die Benutzung des Programms beschreiben soll?Welcher normale IT-Studierende geht in einer Reverse Engineering Übung davon aus, dass man nicht ein Programm analysieren, sondern einfach die Benutzung des Programms beschreiben soll?
Ich frage danach, wie man bei einem Videospiel schummeln kann, man erklärt mir die Regeln des Spiels und bezeichnet das als Schummeln, und das zusätzlich als KI Antwort.
Und sich dann beschweren, wenn ich das mit 0 Punkten bewerte und kommentiere "vermutlich (sinnfreie) KI Antwort".
P.S. Studi schreibt auch seine/ihre Mails mit KI
