"prepared to do what I do every single day in my actual scientific practice: type a prompt and receive a coherent, well-structured response that I would then lightly edit and present as my own thinking."

So, plagiarism. Daily.

Calling it "Discrimination" is obviously absurd but if the process produces useful results, one ought to seriously consider whether it might be worth switching.

I understand we have always conventionally transported goods by horse. Yes, this employee knows nothing about horses, and in fact is rather spooked by them, but we've checked! Their claim to be able to transport goods faster, without a horse, somehow seems to hold up.

Maybe, just maybe, we should take this whole "truck" concept seriously?

This is satire.

But honestly, I think it makes sense. In my experience with programming, when it comes to building and delivering software, it's not really about memorization. Honestly, search ability has been far more important. Wouldn't it be fair to think of AI as just another search ability?

What I'm curious about is this: in the end, experts are the ones who are best at distinguishing hallucinations. If you can just search with GPT and tell the difference, wouldn't that be enough? I can't imagine memorizing thousands or tens of thousands of lines.

I have ADHD, and when I get nervous, I tend to forget what I was going to say, so it's even more true for me.

It's actually embarrassing that she thought all that prompting would have been acceptable during the talk.

A qualifed researcher would have had their agent perform the talk on their behalf rather than waste everyone's time.