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
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!
Nah, it’ll be more subtle than that. Just like Brawno is full of the electrolytes plants crave, responses will be full of subtle product and brand references marketers crave. And A/B studies performed at massive scales in real-time on unwitting users and evaluated with other AIs will help them zero in on the most effective way to pepper those in for each personality type it can differentiate.
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.
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.
I use ddg but find Google gives better results and Google’s snippet feature still rocks.
I don’t like AI in search engines but even duckduckgo’s AI is better lol.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
I gave it a math problem to illustrate this and it got it wrong
If it can’t do that imagine adding nuance
Well, math is not really a language problem, so it’s understandable LLMs struggle with it more.
Wait, when did you do this? I just tried this for my town and researched each aspect to confirm myself. It was all correct. It talked about the natives that once lived here, how the land was taken by Mexico, then granted to some dude in the 1800s. The local attractions were spot on and things I’ve never heard of. I’m…I’m actually shocked and I just learned a bunch of actual history I had no idea of in my town 🤯
I did that test late last year, and repeated it with another town this summer to see if it had improved. Granted, it made less mistakes - but still very annoying ones. Like placing a tourist info at a completely incorrect, non-existent address.
I assume your result also depends a bit on what town you try. I doubt it has really been trained with information pertaining to a city of 160.000 inhabitants in the Netherlands. It should do better with the US I’d imagine.
The problem is it doesn’t tell you it has knowledge gaps like that. Instead, it chooses to be confidently incorrect.
ChatGPT is a tool under development and it will definitely improve in the long term. There is no reason to shit on it like that.
Instead, focus on the real problems: AI not being open-source, AI being under the control of a few monopolies, and there being little to none regulations that ensure it develops in a healthy direction.
Did you chatgpt this title?
The infinitive is the form of a verb that in English is said “to [x]”
For example, “to run” is the infinitive form of “run.”
OP probably meant “infinitely” worse.
OP should edit the post; or kill it if it can’t be edited
We’ll stand by to upvote the fix.
“Did you ChatGPT it?”
I wondered what language this would be an unintended insult in.
Then I chuckled when I ironically realized, it’s offensive in English, lmao.
And then google to confirm the gpt answer isn’t total nonsense
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.
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.
