• DerisionConsulting@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t unless a website requires that I talk to one as a poor excuse for customer service.

    So, less than once a year.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I just type “Speak to a human” until it relents. Usually takes 3-4 times. Kind of the chatbot equivalent of mashing 0 on telephone IVRs. The only question of its that I answer, after it agrees to get a human, is when it asks what I need support with since that gets forwarded to the tech.

  • Emily (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    If by conversation you mean asking for a word by describing it conceptually because I can’t remember, every day. If you mean telling it about my day and hobbies, never.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      That is basically the best use of LLMs.

      A few of the most useful conversations I’ve had with ChatGPT:

  • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I had fun with it a dozen times or so when it was new, but I’m not amused anymore. Last time was about a month ago, when someone told me about using chatGPT to seek an answer, and I intentionally found a few prompts that made it spill clear bullshit, to send screenshots making a point that LLMs aren’t reliable and asking them factual questions is a bad idea.

    • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      4 months ago

      asking them factual questions is a bad idea

      This is a crucial point that everybody should make sure their non-techie friends understand. AI is not good at facts. AI is primarily a bullshitter. They are really only useful where facts don’t matter, like planning events, finding ways to spend time, creating art, etc…

      • subignition@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        If you’re prepared to fact check what it gives you, it can still be a pretty useful tool for breaking down unfamiliar things or for brainstorming. And I’m saying that as someone with a very realistic/concerned view about its limitations.

        Used it earlier this week as a jumping off point for troubleshooting a problem I was having with the USMT in Windows 11.

        • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Absolutely. With code (and I suppose it’s of other logical truths) it’s easier because you can ask it to write a test for the code, though the test may be invalid so you have to check that. With arbitrary facts, I usually ask “is that true?” To have it check itself. Sometimes it just gets into a loop of lies, but other times it actually does tell the truth.

  • Bear@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Only to try out the next big upgrade. It will never be human or superhuman.

  • FrankLaskey@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Maybe 1-3 times a day. I find that the newest version of ChatGPT (4o) typically returns answers that are faster and better quality than a search engine inquiry, especially for inquiries that have a bit more conceptualization required or are more bespoke (i.e give me recipes to use up these 3 ingredients etc) so it has replaced search engines for me in those cases.

  • HornyOnMain@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Not as much as I did at the beginning, but I mainly chalk that up to learning more about its limitations and getting better at detecting its bullshit. I no longer go to it for designing because it doesn’t do it well at the scale i need. Now it’s mainly used to refractor already working code, to remember what a kind of feature is called, and to catch random bugs that usually end up being typos that are hard to see visually. Past that, i only use it for code generation a line at a time with copilot, or sometimes a function at a time if the function is super simple but tedious to type, and even then i only accept the suggestion that i was already thinking of typing.

    Basically it’s become fancy autocomplete, but that’s still saved me a tremendous amount of time.

  • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I forgot how the conversation went, but one day, a conversation I had with someone about comprehensibility (which was often an issue) compelled me to talk to an AI, a talk which I remember from the fact the AI did now have such issues as the complaining humans had.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah I’ve run into this a bit. People say it “doesn’t understand” things, but when I ask for a definition of “understand” I usually just get downvotes.

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    The closest I come to chatting is asking github co-pilot to explain syntax when I’m learning a new language. I just needed to contribute a class library to an existing C# API, hadn’t done OOP in 15 years, and had never touched dotNet.

  • cheddar@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I ask additional questions or provide information from my side to get a better answer, but I’m still doing this to solve a problem or gather knowledge. I guess that counts as a conversation, but not a casual one.