373
I totally missed the point when PeerTube got so good
(ani.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
373 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
35862 readers
135 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Why do people bring this up every fucking time?
Because they know it's not accurate and explicitly mention it so you know where this information comes from.
Then why post it at all?
Because they'd still like to know? it's generally expected to do some research on your own before asking other people, and inform them of what you've already tried
Asking ChatGPT isn’t research.
AI seems to think it’s always right but in reality it is seldom correct.
Sounds like every human it's been trained on
No, it sounds like a mindless statistics machine because that’s what it is. Even stupid people have reasons for saying and doing things.
Yes, stupid people's reason is because Trump said so, so it must be true
It makes idiots whine
People also say they googled, unfortunately
Not the same thing.
google allows for the possibility that the user was able to think critically about sources that a search returned
chapGPT is drunk uncle confidently stating a thing they heard third hand from Janet in accounting and then taking him at his word
but at least your drunk uncle won't boil the oceans in the process too
How dare you, my drunk uncle is completely capable of boiling the oceans! He was even boasting about it at our last family dinner!
noone boils the ocean with using chatgpt
one transatlantic flight produces the same amount of CO2 as 600000 ChatGPT requests; if you use Quen 2.5, you need to make nearly 2 mio. requests.
To set this in relation, transport only for Bezos wedding in Venice equals about 54000000 ChatGPT requests.
Using a LLM once in a while is negligible.
People before ChatGPT thought critically of things on Google as much as they do ChatGPT today.
People before facebook thought critically of what they saw on the news as much as they do facebook today.
Sure, people didn't think about things too much at any point in time and sources aren't always perfectly reliable, but some sources are worse than others,
You’re giving people using google too much credit.
Unfortunately now Google is ChatGPT. It provides its own shitty AI answers, and its search results have been corrupted by an ocean of slop.
I assumed it was bwing used the current common usage for using a web search, like how kleenex is used for any facial tittle, not literally Google the search engine.
Speaking of literal, Google is putting Gemini results before search results, not using chatGPT.
Ai's provide you with links so you can use your critical thinking
Do you click on the links?
If they are links from the search, isn't that just the same thing as doing a regular search and verifying the results?
What does this extra layer add other than an unreliable middleman who is extremely inefficient?
But don't you see? It allows the corporations to insert their opinion into the answer and bias you before you click that link. That's better right?
You are correct. AI can give an a completely different answer than its source and they can just blame it on AI. This is true but Google has sway the results given depending on the individual. Obama talks about this and how it contributes to the extreme divide of people of the US.
It steals content from creators while being worse for the environment at the same time. Not the same thing, it is worse.
I worked in education in computer science and basic usage in nearly every age group. When you realize how bad people are at using search engines, you can see why people think they accomplished something using AI. It's like giving a child a calculator saying he can do math now.
Creating search prompts itself is a skill. You wouldn't think so until trying to teach some one logic through search prompts. It is hell, literally my hell. Some people just don't get it like 0 percent.
Differentiating what is a good source and what is a bad source is an even harder skill. People will believe what they want to believe. Google search adapts to the bias of individuals because it keeps people searching. This is why, even though it isn't perfect, engines like duckduckgo are important.
Because people are dumber than chatgpt.
It also proves we don't have a 50/50 split in intelligence. We need to look at the mean, then we'll see most people are just plain fucking dumb
Also, lazier. I'm more likely to stick with information from the first 1-3 search results I decided to click, while AI will parse and summarize dozens in fraction of time I spend reading just one.
Honest answer? It's easy and it won't judge you for asking stupid questions.
Edit - people are replying as if I said I do this. I'm sorry for the confusion. I don't. This is why I see other people do it. When it comes to the general population, most people don't care, they just want easy.
Search engines and Wikipedia don't judge you for asking stupid questions either.
You're right, but they take actual thought and effort. People who use chat gpt don't wanna do that.
Almost all content has been hyper-optimized to rank well on Google, not to provide good answers for humans
No it'll just hallucinate shit that'll make you look dumb when you go and state it as fact.
Yep, agree. That's why I don't personally use it.
"I used chatgpt"
I think it's because it causes all of Lemmy to have a collective ragegasm. It's kind of funny in a trollish way. I support OP in this endeavour.
Even the small local AI niche hates ChatGPT, heh.
How would you phrase this differently?
"It looks like this feature was added 5 years ago."
If asking for confirmation, just ask for confirmation.
So, your solution is for the user to provide less information and then respond to people to inform them if they used chatgpt if asked?
It just seems like much less reps are used if they say they used ChatGPT.
Additionally, if they don’t say it and no one asks, in the future people might look for a source, at least this way there is a warning there might be misinformation.
I know what your going to say next, they should research the thing themselves independently of ChatGPT, but honestly, they probably don’t care/have the time to look up released notes over the past few years.
Why would anyone ask where they got the info if it is accurate?
The point Is that it might not be accurate. It’s like saying, “a friend told me…”
It lets the reader know that the information being shared was presented as truthful, but wasn’t verified by the commenter themselves.
This is the golden age of misinformation and you are bitching about citations?