• snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    They’re pretty good at summarizing, but don’t trust the summary to be accurate, just to give you a decent idea of what something is about.

    That is called being terrible at summarizing.

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      if you want to find a few articles out of a few hundred that are about the benefits of nuclear weapons or other controversial topics that have significant literature on them it can be helpful to eliminate 90% that probably aren’t what I’m looking for.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Or you might eliminate some that are what you are looking for because the summaries are inaccurate.

        Guess it depends on whether an unreliable system is still better than being overwhelmed with choices.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      That depends on how you use it. If you need the information from an article, but don’t want to read it, I agree, an LLM is probably the wrong tool. If you have several articles and want go decide which one has the information you need, an LLM is a pretty good option.