[GLLUG] Using LLM for support answers - please don't (Was Re: British Gas DKIM failure?)

[Jan van Bergen]

On 2024-01-28 14:06, Carles Pina i Estany via GLLUG wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 28 Jan 2024 at 13:23:26, Andy Smith via GLLUG wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 12:42:20AM +0000, Carles Pina i Estany via 
>> GLLUG wrote:
>> > (this is a copy-paste from a... ChatGPT conversation):
>> 
>> Please don't.
> 
> To clarify, that was only the list of things that could have been wrong
> on why opendkim reported "bad signature". To my knowledge, the list
> seems correct and can be usefl. I am not a professional mail sysadmin
> (even though I set up email servers, during years, in different
> environments).
> 
> The rest of the email is hand typed and brain thought!
> 
> Anyway, I'll not do it again.
> 
>> If this was a StackOverflow site, your response would not be
>> permitted because you used an LLM (ChatGPT).
> 
> yes, but this is not StackOverflow (so didn't think that adding 4 lines
> that I thought that were well explained) was a problem. Stating the
> source.
> 
> I thought that it was a good description to help Henrik that could have
> happened and fix the issue.
> 
>> I think that StackOverflow's reasoning for their policy is sound and
>> would apply here also:
>> 
>>     
>> https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-generative-ai-e-g-chatgpt-is-banned
>> 
>> In a nutshell, any of us, including Henrik, can easily use an LLM
>> yet what we can't easily do without domain knowledge is tell when an
>> LLM is *incorrect*.
> 
> I do have some (limited) domain knowledge and I thought that the 4 
> lines
> were quite correct and a good summary (else, I wouldn't go answering
> things that I have no idea).
> 
> I might still be wrong, in this case I apologise and hope to learn.
> 
>> When someone asks a question on a mailing list like this, I'd like
>> to think their question would be given as much respect as if it were
>> asked on a Stack site.
> 
> This is my third email trying to help Henrik, including sharing some
> scripts that I use for a similar case. I really only want to help
> Henrik, and I used tools that I had in hand to try to explain one of 
> the
> errors. I will not do it another time.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion here!
I am normally not active on this forum, but read most of the messages 
and do have some knowledge in linux. For me to state that a policy from 
another site, just because it makes sense, should also retrospectively 
appy here just because you think it makes sense, is a wrong assumption. 
If you think that policy should apply here, lets discuss and agree to 
that. Not just retrospectively apply it to a person, that for all 
intents and purposes is trying to help Hendrik is not conductive to free 
and open discussions.
For me the usage of LLMs, if done correctly, is a great tool. As any 
tool it has its limitation, the famous hallucinations to name but one. 
However many times already I have used it to create an outline of an 
article or presentation. Even if you're an expert in the area, just 
getting past a blank page can be hard. As long as you check the outcome 
and make sure that any mistakes are corrected and missing info is added 
it can be an extremely valuable tool in improving productivity. I am 
actively encouraging all the developers in my department to use it.
How Carles used it, with giving a reference stating that the lines in 
question came from a LLM, while still making sure that the info is 
correct to me is very much how you should use tools like this, and I had 
absolutely no issue with it.
I often ask LLMs to rewrite paragraphs I have written to make them 
easier to read, as English is not my first language. Obviously I would 
make sure I still agree with what is said and often it is a dialogue 
with the LLM till I am happy with the proposed text. Maybe you're a 
language virtuoso and don't need tools to write, not everybody is like 
that.
Let's try to be nice to eachother, especially when somebody is doing 
his/her/its best to help
Jan