Why? If the answers are good, leave them.
Let's assume we have the final form AGI. If it doesn't confirm the claims are accurate then it falls under the same flaw as humans who don't confirm.
If it's a bunch of untested, unconfirmed results that are statistically pretty decent, this doesn't really reduce the amount of work.
That is the same misplaced enthusiasm that developers tend to do when they fetishize new tools or languages which actually make their job more complicated and time consuming but occupy the time in a way that gives illusory optics to the contrary.
The fact that most devs get fooled by such productivity illusions are why 10x engineer are a real thing.
Do we have any evidence that users confirm the answers? In general the conformation is in the end users following up and saying this works/doesn't work.
Now, this gets more problematic when 'bots' follow up and says it works, but that is going to be a massive problem in detecting that's the case unless they are doing it far more than a human could.
No.
> In general the conformation is in the end users following up and saying this works/doesn't work.
I guess.
The point is there's a limit to the trustworthiness of the results and if I'm going there to fix a problem, the success rate I'm looking for is 100%, especially if it's said as confidently and verbosely as these AIs seem to be
The tech is moving at breakneck pace, and in general I'm loving it. But let's not hurry the adoption of AI too much
It's not as valuable as raw text input, but it's still marked up and classified
We call it RLHF these days
While SO still has voting, the value of a vote in terms of identifying correct information has fallen off substantially in the past several years. Poorly written questions and incorrect answers are more likely to get an upvote for trying than a down vote for what's actually written.