Post by @eevee@slime.global

2026-09-26 18:12 UTC

@glyph@mastodon.social @zzzeek@fosstodon.org @hynek@mastodon.social and even your post hinges on the charitable assumption that the end user is actually verifying the output in some way. at least for code, there's *some* way to do this: you can run it. but the sales pitch is "phew, the computer did it for me" and that's the sort of thing that haunts me. it seems unlikely that ari drennen is checking that the automated tax returns or summaries of their email are *accurate*, because that would involve manually doing exactly the same work

Replies (2)

@zzzeek@fosstodon.org 2026-09-26 18:35

@eevee@slime.global @glyph@mastodon.social @hynek@mastodon.social right it's always the same response: "no your're not. did you check? did you do this? did you do that?" completely nullifying people's experience without having seen it or anything.

Open ##4860432
@eevee@slime.global 2026-09-26 18:16

@glyph@mastodon.social @zzzeek@fosstodon.org @hynek@mastodon.social is that a "cost"? not really, not until it's wrong in a way that has a knock-on consequence fwiw here is *my* impression of general sentiment: on a bluesky thread about some painfully mainstream topic, i replied to someone to say "please don't confuse google's generated summary with actual information". they replied akin to "you think GOOGLE would publish false info?? 🤣🤣🤣" and blocked me

Open ##5274374