• Sculptus Poe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I wonder where people can go. Wikipedia maybe. ChatGPT is better than google for answering most questions where getting the answer wrong won’t have catastrophic consequences. It is also a good place to get started in researching something. Unfortunately, most people don’t know how to assess the potential problems. Those people will also have trouble if they try googling the answer, as they will choose some biased information source if it’s a controversial topic, usually picking a source that matches their leaning. There aren’t too many great sources of information on the internet anymore, it’s all tainted by partisans or locked behind pay-walls. Even if you could get a free source for studies, many are weighted to favor whatever result the researcher wanted. It’s a pretty bleak world out there for good information.

  • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    Ugh. Don’t get me started.

    Most people don’t understand that the only thing it does is ‘put words together that usually go together’. It doesn’t know if something is right or wrong, just if it ‘sounds right’.

    Now, if you throw in enough data, it’ll kinda sorta make sense with what it writes. But as soon as you try to verify the things it writes, it falls apart.

    I once asked it to write a small article with a bit of history about my city and five interesting things to visit. In the history bit, it confused two people with similar names who lived 200 years apart. In the ‘things to visit’, it listed two museums by name that are hundreds of miles away. It invented another museum that does not exist. It also happily tells you to visit our Olympic stadium. While we do have a stadium, I can assure you we never hosted the Olympics. I’d remember that, as i’m older than said stadium.

    The scary bit is: what it wrote was lovely. If you read it, you’d want to visit for sure. You’d have no clue that it was wholly wrong, because it sounds so confident.

    AI has its uses. I’ve used it to rewrite a text that I already had and it does fine with tasks like that. Because you give it the correct info to work with.

    Use the tool appropriately and it’s handy. Use it inappropriately and it’s a fucking menace to society.

    • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      I know this is off topic, but every time i see you comment of a thread all i can see is the pepsi logo (i use the sync app for reference)

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I gave it a math problem to illustrate this and it got it wrong

      If it can’t do that imagine adding nuance

      • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        Ymmv i guess. I’ve given it many difficult calculus problems to help me through and it went well

      • kopasz7@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Well, math is not really a language problem, so it’s understandable LLMs struggle with it more.

          • kopasz7@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Hmm, yeah, AI never really did think. I can’t argue with that.

            It’s really strange now if I mentally zoom out a bit, that we have machines that are better at languange based reasoning than logic based (like math or coding).

            • Hoimo@ani.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 minutes ago

              Not really true though. Computers are still better at math. They’re even pretty good at coding, if you count compiling high-level code into assembly as coding.

              But in this case we built a language machine to respond to language with more language. Of course it’s not going to do great at other stuff.

  • Victoria@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    160
    ·
    1 day ago

    Meanwhile Google search results:

    • AI summary
    • 2x “sponsored” result
    • AI copy of Stackoverflow
    • AI copy of Geeks4Geeks
    • Geeks4Geeks (with AI article)
    • the thing you actually searched for
    • AI copy of AI copy of stackoverflow
    • rescue_toaster@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      81
      ·
      1 day ago

      Should we put bets on how long until chatgpt responds to anything with:

      Great question, before i give you a response, let me show you this great video for a new product you’ll definitely want to check out!

    • FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Google search is literally fucking dogshit and the worst it has EVER been. I’m starting to think fucking duckduckgo (relies on Bing) gives better results at this point.

      • Aielman15@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 day ago

        I have been using Duck for a few years now and I honestly prefer it to Google at this point. I’ll sometimes switch to Google if I don’t find anything on Duck, but that happens once every three or four months, if that.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              23 hours ago

              To this day any time I navigate somewhere with Google maps while someone else separately navigates there with apple maps, we end up at different places. More often than not, I’m where we both should’ve ended up.

              • radiohead37@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                22 hours ago

                Interesting. In my experience, google maps is “too creative” on their routes. They usually send me to some back roads that only make my drive much longer.

                • Soggy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  17 hours ago

                  I suspect that Google Maps preemptively routes some percentage of drivers through alternate directions in order to ease congestion. (Because if Maps tells you that the obvious route will get you there in thirty minutes and it takes an hour then you’re going to be mad at Maps)

                  Regardless of their route choices, Maps is always solid with ETA for me and it has access to a ton of traffic data.

        • teft@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Same here. I only switch to google to search for images for memes. For some reason bing has a harder time finding random star trek scenes.

        • DiabolicalBird@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          The one thing Google still has over Duck for me at this point is reddit results. So much niche information is stored on that site, but they’ve blocked anyone other than Google from crawling the site so other engines can’t index past the point they changed that policy.

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I use ddg but find Google gives better results and Google’s snippet feature still rocks.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Careful. People here get mad about that for some reason. Like you can’t think Google sucks but that their search engine is still better than others. And people will argue with you that Google is way worse than anything else. I don’t know what planet they are from.

      • GingaNinga@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’m in sciences and the AI overview gives wrong answers ALL THE TIME. If students or god forbid professionals rely on it thats bad news.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Isn’t it funny that a lot of people were worried that wikipedia would be unreliable because anyone could edit it, then turned out pretty reliable, but AI is being pushed hard despite being even more unreliable than the worst speculation about wikipedia?

          Being for profit excuses being shitty I guess.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      We have new feature, use it!

      No, its broken and stupid, I prefer old feature.

      … Fine!

      breaks old feature even harder

    • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’ve used Google since 2004. I stopped using it this year because as the parent comment points out, it’s all marketing and AI. I like Qwant but it’s not perfect but it functions like a previous version of Google.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        I have tried a few replacements for Google but I’ve yet to find anything remotely as effective for searches about things close to me. Like if I’m looking for a restaurant near me, kagi, startpage, and DDG are not good. Is qwant good for a use case like that? Haven’t heard about it before.

        • PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I’ve had some success but it goes off of your ISPs server location so for me it’s not very useful.

      • DontMakeMoreBabies@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I have not enjoyed Qwant - tried it as my default but I’m back to DDG. I just want a functional Google again (boolean operators please…)

    • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      yeah, but at least we can vet that shit better that the unsourced and hallucinated drivel provided by ChatGPT

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The irony is that Gemini Pro is actually better than ChatGPT (which is not saying a ton, as OpenAI have completely stagnated and even some small open models are better now), but whatever they use for search is beyond horrible.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I’ve had people tell me “Of course, I’ll verify the info if it’s important”, which implies that if the question isn’t important, they’ll just accept whatever ChatGPT gives them. They don’t care whether the answer is correct or not; they just want an answer.

      • Leg@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Well yeah. I’m not gonna verify how many butts it takes to swarm mount everest, because that’s not worth my time. The robot’s answer is close enough to satisfy my curiosity.

        • Leg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          For the curious, I got two responses with different calculations and different answers as a result. So it could take anywhere from 1.5 to 7.5 billion butts to swarm mount everest. Again, I’m not checking the math because I got the answer I wanted.

      • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        18 hours ago

        That is a valid tactic for programming or how-to questions, provided you know not to unthinkingly drink bleach if it says to.

  • Artyom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Reject proprietary LLMs, tell people to “just llama it”

      • Acters@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Top is proprietary llms vs bottom self hosted llms. Bothe end with you getting smacked in the face but one looks far cooler or smarter to do, while the other one is streamlined web app that gets you there in one step.

        • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          But when it is open source, nobody gets regularly slain and the planet progressively destroyed due to mega conglomerate entities automating class violence

  • ch00f@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 day ago

    Last night, we tried to use chatGPT to identify a book that my wife remembers from her childhood.

    It didn’t find the book, but instead gave us a title for a theoretical book that could be written that would match her description.

    • leverage@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Same happens every time I’ve tried to use it for search. Will be radioactive for this type of thing until someone figures that out. Quite frustrating, if they spent as much time on determining the difference between when a user wants objective information with citations as they do determining if the response breaks content guidelines, we might actually have something useful. Instead, we get AI slop.

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Have they? Don’t think I’ve heard that once and I work with people who use chat gpt themselves

  • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    How long until ChatGPT starts responding “It’s been generally agreed that the answer to your question is to just ask ChatGPT”?

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m somewhat surprised that ChatGPT has never replied with “just Google it, bruh!” considering how often that answer appears in its data set.

      • ddplf@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Which is still better than “elementary truths that will quickly turn into shit I make up without warning”, which is where ChatGPT is and will forever be stuck at.

  • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    GPTs natural language processing is extremely helpful for simple questions that have historically been difficult to Google because they aren’t a concise concept.

    The type of thing that is easy to ask but hard to create a search query for like tip of my tongue questions.

    • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 day ago

      Google used to be amazing at this. You could literally search “who dat guy dat paint dem melty clocks” and get the right answer immediately.

      • burgersc12@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I mean tbf you can still search “who DAT guy” and it will give you Salvador Dali in one of those boxes that show up before the search results.