There's a large list of things LLM are known to not be reliable for: searching anything beyond surface informations
This implies that it is reliable for "surface informations" which i disagree with, though a lot of people get sucked in that way
An article has context. Who published it? What else has the author written? Llm articles strip that all out.
“No camera, no microphone, no AI, no battery, no electronics of any kind,” Knockaround boasts on its website. “Just a beautifully crafted pair of matte black sunglasses with a glossy DuckDuckGo logo, designed to block the sun and never send data to the cloud
How do the boxes work
Oh Lord, yeah!
You should check your facts about meat efficiency, soy milk and dairy... And don't just ask ai to tell you what you want to hear...
I like that everyone can agree with this comment, regardless of which side they're on.
Not op, but a search engine is a better starting point than an LLM, because it is a predictable tool, fetching internet resources which can be evaluated on their merits.
The AI presents itself as the actual information.
I see too many people in my daily life saying "the ai summary said..." and it is worse than useless.
The fact that people think LLMs should be trusted as a starting point is heartbreaking to me.
I think that's unreasonable, but that's just me.
I got this vibe from stuff you should know podcast once early on, but after i was mad at them for a while, I still listen, and they seem to do a better job now.
When you're making edutainment for a general audience, there's going to be some things that will seem obvious to experts, so i can't really knock them for that.
But I can knock them for not doing their research and putting out wrong information, especially if they don't retract it later.
Edit: this video is a knitter explaining it well. She doesn't blame Hank either, but explains the reaction and the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHpGoYlzmog
Google is shit.