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.

Reject proprietary LLMs, tell people to "just llama it"

And then google to confirm the gpt answer isn't total nonsense

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

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

Did you chatgpt this title?

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.

just call it cgpt for short

Computer Generated Partial Truths

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

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.

I say, "Just search it." Not interested in being free advertising for Google.

This is why so much research has been going into AI lately. The trend is already to not read articles or source material and base opinions off click bait headlines, so naturally relying on AI summaries and search results will soon come next. People will start to assume any generated response from a 'trusted search ai' is true, so there is a ton of value in getting an AI to give truthful and correct responses all of the time, and then be able to edit certain responses to inject whatever truth you want. Then you effectively control what truth is, and be able to selectively edit public opinion by manipulating what people are told is true. Right now we're also being trained that AI may make things up and not be totally accurate- which gives those running the services a plausible excuse if caught manipulating responses.

I am not looking forward to arguing facts with people citing AI responses as their source for truth. I already know if I present source material contradicting them, they lack the ability to actually read and absorb the material.

This is entirely Google's fault.

"Let's ask MULTIVAC!"

Chat~gpt~ is this real

This is a story that's been rotating through the media since ChatGPT first released.

I have an unpopular opinion about this headline after seeing the media cycle repeatedly downplay/ignore what Alphabet has been doing in response to OpenAI: Google the search engine is not in direct competition with ChatGPT, but Gemini is, and Alphabet is smart to keep simpler/time-tested search functionality central to Google rather than react strongly and scrap the keyword-based search bar that users understand are comfortable using - especially older users, but I think most people are starting to discover they have a use for both search and LLM chats.

I think there are two product categories here, which first looked like they were going to converge in 2022-2024, but which are now slowly changing course as customers start to comprehend how both are necessary for different purposes.

When I make chats in ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude etc, I am starting to plan them longitudinally so that I can use them over and over for a specific project or query type.

When I turn to a search bar, it's because I really want a proxy for a specific website or between me and whatever weird site has the answer to my specific question. It's not that I want discussion and a chat about it, I just want Google's card-like results with a website index I can read instead of that website's stylized, animated web design on top or popups or malware.

Every time I get sucked into a chat with Bing CoPilot(ChatGPT) when I really only had a web search query, I regret wasting my time talking to the LLM. Almost as a reflex, I've started avoiding it for most things now.

Just duck it bro. (Add !chat to your query or use ai assistant in results)