How often do you use AI?

[geocycle]

My Daughter is a University lecturer, and the students are told they can use AI (as long as they declare it) to assist with grammar structuring. They overstep the mark and use it to create their work content, and don't declare they've even used it to structure. Easy to fail them for that piece of work - they are asked 'tell me more about this part' and, of course, they don't know anything about it. Shocking that they can't see the value in gaining knowledge about the subject. We know of someone (different Uni) who openly stated he passed a Masters and used AI for his thesis

It’s a big problem and policies are evolving all the time. AI is useful and will be part of working lives so we have to incorporate it as appropriate. Assessment is very difficult and old methods like exams and vivas are making a come back. In the end knowledge will be readily available but thinking and critical intelligence will still need to be taught.

 

[geocycle]

Personally I’m a Luddite but have to use it for searches as a minimum. I’ve not created anything with it yet but it will no doubt happen at some point. The environmental and social costs are a concern.

 

[tyred]

We're being told to use it at work. I'm probably not using it as much as some colleagues but it's definitely useful in many situations.

I used it to write a new CV recently. Put it together better than I probably could have done myself.

The other side of that is a friend had been involved in the recruiting of a few new people where she works, and says that you get all these incredibly well-written cover letters and CVs coming in. Then you meet the candidates for interview, and some can't even put a sentence together and clearly aren't that bright. In the old days, a badly written CV or a cover letter full of grammar mistakes could be flung in the bin and not waste any more time on that person.

 

[Pblakeney]

I can't vote. 🤔
I never use AI but I believe that it exists and could serve useful purposes. Photos, flyers and memes are not it.

 

[Once a Wheeler]

A good way of getting a brief summary of a field about which I know nothing. Following that, I can check the references to see how accurate it is. Often, it proves to be accurate as far as it goes but then omits vast areas of relevant knowledge which it has failed to recognize as belonging to the topic in question. Useful, but beware.

 

[Moodyman]

Multiple times daily though with mixed feelings. I have to for my job, we're relying on it more and more. Done well it's a definite timesaver. Roughing out documents, producing feedback on content we've created, or acting as a research assistant. It's very good at being a more targeted search engine and it can collate the info it finds and summarise it into a convenient one pager with sources. For generating code it's now getting scarily good, our engineers are using it for writing code and unit tests, often with one or two agents writing code and another writing the tests, and a third acting as an overseer/architect and checking both against the spec and the guardrails. The agents are given different priorities and sometimes they are from different LLMs.

As above.

I used it yesterday to do my annual self assessment. I asked it to trawl my emails and calendar and find all the good stuff I’d done. It did a day’s laborious job in less than 2 minutes.

I also use it for writing lengthy documents and minor coding.

 

[katiewlx]

using loads at work now for all kinds of things, its really being embedded as a capability, rather than a mere software tool I think, though as with all software tools if the costs to use it or manage it outgrow its usefulness, I can see it being limited, but for now tphb's think its the best thing since sliced bread

but some of the stuff you read about about the LLMs, doing things way beyond the expectations of the people who are sort of tasking it to test it, and these are only the things theyre admitting to it doing.

 

[Electric_Andy]

Proactively, probably once every 6 weeks. E.g I'll ask it to rephrase something, or to make a chart. My partner today had a very long and complicated hospital report, which she copy pasted into the AI search and simply added "explain" at the end. It returned a perfectly clear explanation in lay terms

 

[fossyant]

If you click search on most searches it uses AI. I find that useful for a summarised answer, but I don't use it for anything else, even work stuff.

 

[EckyH]

I try to avoid it as much as possible.
Until now nobody could give me a satisfying answer which problem Artificial Incompetence really solves.
Fortunately nearly all people at work use the term "use case" when they refer to their use of AI. That matches the things I see how people use AI - as a workaround around problems.

E.

 

[DRM]

"The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes online August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."

Some things should never have been invented, so a decent film turns into a prophecy, humans never learn

 

[Pat "5mph"]

I also use it for finding thing like "Required torque for Shimano bottom bracket with BSA thread" because it can trawl through the Shimano instructions and other sources far faster than I could.

A good way of getting a brief summary of a field about which I know nothing. Following that, I can check the references to see how accurate it is. Often, it proves to be accurate as far as it goes but then omits vast areas of relevant knowledge which it has failed to recognize as belonging to the topic in question. Useful, but beware.

I use it for the two purposes above.
I don't work at a desk, but I find Gemini very useful for my hobby of baking.
It can find me a recipe to my specifications faster than me watching umpteen YouTube videos or clicking on Google links.
Of course sometimes I need to dig deeper, like @Once a Wheeler said beware of the omissions.
I think the paid versions are more accurate, but I have never tried them.
A friend used ChatGPT to design a room for him, then to find all what was needed for the room on Amazon.
I wouldn't go as far, I like to use my brain.
Once I asked AI, don't remember which one, to translate in Egyptian Arabic an Italian expression.
It worked, she understood perfectly.

 

[FishFright]

I don't. *

*I always scroll past the obvious AI on search results but they are generated anyway so I can't really say that I'm 100% AI free.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

I always use the Google AI option when searching the www. - usually gives a deeper level of resultant trawl.

Presume this is simply an LLM as true AI is years (or more) away. AFAIK.

 

[Reynard]

I also use it for finding thing like "Required torque for Shimano bottom bracket with BSA thread" because it can trawl through the Shimano instructions and other sources far faster than I could.

This ^^^

If you're looking for a quick answer to a question then yes, it sifts through a load of stuff and comes up with either answers or pointers to the right places. Of course, I will still cross-check, as that's second nature for someone with a background in research. I've found it good for mundane stuff (like cooking or synonyms) as well as more obscure stuff (nerdy question about ERA racing cars). It's a useful tool.

What I *won't* use it for is for writing or checking grammar / spelling. As a writer, I want my output to be entirely my own work, from the ideas and the cadence of the language, through to the choice of words. The same applies whether it's a piece of fiction, a piece of research or even a catalogue of engineering drawings - my use of language is uniquely mine. It's the "fingerprint" of my writing.

I think it's also a case of "use it or lose it" when it comes to grammar and spelling. Besides, I enjoy editing and tweaking my work. That said, I totally get using it as a "safety net checker" when writing in a language that you are less confident in. Especially if it makes your output look more polished.