Da Cap’n@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 21 days agoPeople Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasieswww.rollingstone.comexternal-linkmessage-square194fedilinkarrow-up1459arrow-down121file-textcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
arrow-up1438arrow-down1external-linkPeople Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasieswww.rollingstone.comDa Cap’n@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 21 days agomessage-square194fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]
minus-squareOlap@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·21 days agoWikipedia isn’t to be referenced for scientific papers, I’m sure we all agree there. But it does do almost exactly what you described. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe has some great further reading links. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology has some great reads too. And for the time short: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology which also has Related Pages I’m still yet to see how AI beats a search engine. And your example hasn’t convinced me either
minus-squareDeceptichum@quokk.aulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·21 days agoIf you still can’t see how natural language search is useful, that’s fine. We can, and we’re happy to keep using it.
Wikipedia isn’t to be referenced for scientific papers, I’m sure we all agree there. But it does do almost exactly what you described. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe has some great further reading links. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology has some great reads too. And for the time short: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology which also has Related Pages
I’m still yet to see how AI beats a search engine. And your example hasn’t convinced me either
If you still can’t see how natural language search is useful, that’s fine. We can, and we’re happy to keep using it.