algorithms are tools. like in any field every professional is supposed to be aware of "the basic standard tool set", what a good implemenation of a tool supposed to be like (i should be able to assess if a hammer is broken or good for use if i am civil engineer, or piano if i am a musician). it does not mean they should be able to "create that tool from scratch".
knowing the tools will only benefit you irrespective of your employer or other tools in town. (llm is also a tool, ides are tools, libraries are tools, design patterns is a tool)
> She had no intention to misquote or misrepresent the rulings and that "the mistake occurred solely due to the reliance on an automatic source", the high court wrote
I don't think the intention matters here. Its the same deal with every profession using llm to "automate" their work. The onus in on the professional, not the llm. Arstechnica case could have been justified by same manner otherwise.
Not knowing the law isnt execuse to break law, so why is not knowing the tool an excuse to blame the tool.
Fair enough. I did not see this as a promotion of the product and more of as a show experimental side project. But if they really want to promote the product, the llm design isnt helping giving any confidence. A blog post would have sufficed.
Why does LLM generated websites feel so "LLM generated".
Its like a bootstrap css just dropped. People still giving "minimum effort" into their vibe code/eng projects but slap a domain on top. Is this to save token cost ?
And now Perplexity has mailed all of those "free" users to add a "card" (wont charge now) to continue with its free pro offer. Apart from airtel perplexity ran a lot of college based programs where students were basically referring each other for money.