Just scroll past it? I just assume it’s going to be wrong anyway.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
on 05 Dec 21:01
nextcollapse
Ok.
> uses search engine
> search engine gives generative AI answer
God dammit
> scroll down
> click search result
> AI Generated article
RobotToaster@mander.xyz
on 05 Dec 21:39
nextcollapse
> search engine gives generative AI answer
> It cites it source, so can’t be that bad right?
> click link to source
> It’s an AI generated article
Oh no.
RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 06 Dec 02:01
collapse
AI will give the correct, real source and then still make shit up. Bing linked to bulbapedia to tell me wailord was the heaviest Pokemon. Bulbapedia knows it isn’t close, bingpt doesn’t know shit.
It’s funny because I’ve also used LLM for getting useful info about pokemon, and it didn’t make any sense.
RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 06 Dec 11:34
nextcollapse
I gave up immediately, friend tried one for old school Runescape and it said a rune pickaxe was available at any charter trader. It is in fact available at 0 of them. I’ve literally never had it be accurate
Answer: In Old School RuneScape (OSRS), you can purchase a rune pickaxe from several locations:
Nurmof’s Pickaxe Shop: Located in the Dwarven Mine, this shop sells various pickaxes, including the rune pickaxe, for 32,000 coins.
Yarsul’s Prodigious Pickaxes: Situated in the Mining Guild, Yarsul offers the rune pickaxe at the same price of 32,000 coins.
Pickaxe-Is-Mine Shop: Found in the dwarven city of Keldagrim, this shop also stocks the rune pickaxe.
Additionally, you can purchase a rune pickaxe from other players through the Grand Exchange or by trading directly. Keep in mind that prices may vary based on market demand.
For a visual guide on where to buy pickaxes in OSRS, you might find this video helpful:
prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
on 09 Dec 12:44
collapse
It’s fantastic at templating
Just don’t trust what it provides the template
moseschrute@lemmy.world
on 05 Dec 22:11
nextcollapse
Don’t be ridiculous. It’s more like Google search result you click is an ad rather than an organic search result, and that ad… is an ad that’s ai generated… god damnit
Lightsong@lemmy.world
on 06 Dec 00:35
nextcollapse
Dont forget sponsored results crammed in between.
dance_ninja@lemmy.world
on 06 Dec 01:00
nextcollapse
The uncertainty has gripped the world in fear. I go to hug my wife for comfort. She is cakeGen AI.
Maybe go to more than 2 places for your information? I agree that this shit is also an issue with news and other media, but it’s not that hard to find more substantial information on things. At least not yet.
And I can’t remember the exact process off hand, but there’s still a way to get search results without that garbage on google. I’ll edit if I can find it.
*Found it. So, at least for Firefox, you can add a custom search engine through the settings. For the url, input https://www.google.com/search?q=%25s&udm=14 and then set it as your default se if you want. As far as I can tell, it’s a simplified version of the main search, just without the “helpful” add-ons. Hope it helps some people.
**For some reason Lemmy is adding a ‘25’ between the % and s. Those numbers shouldn’t be there, just fyi.
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
on 06 Dec 17:30
collapse
**For some reason Lemmy is adding a ‘25’ between the % and s. Those numbers shouldn’t be there, just fyi.
The URL as shown is actually valid. No worries there.
The value 25 happens to be hexidecimal for a percent sign. The percent symbol is reserved in URLs for encoding special characters (e.g. %20 is a space), so a bare percent sign must be represented by %25. Lemmy must be parsing your URL and normalizing it for the rest of us.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
on 06 Dec 01:54
nextcollapse
Use udm14.org.
Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Dec 03:31
collapse
Legend.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
on 06 Dec 14:02
collapse
There’s also udm14.com if you want to have cheeky fun with it.
That’s all you have to do, it’s not hard. I’m absolutely certain that people really want to have things that annoy them and makes them feel bad just so they can complain and get attention from that complaining. This is the same as people complaining about ads online and then doing nothing to fix that, it’s the same with many things.
intresteph@discuss.online
on 05 Dec 21:10
nextcollapse
Umm no, it’s faster, better, and doesn’t push ads in my face. Fuck you, google
Interstellar_1@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 05 Dec 21:25
collapse
Just use another search engine then, like searxng
intresteph@discuss.online
on 05 Dec 21:31
collapse
Sorry, I like answers without having to deal with crappy writing, bullshit comments, and looking at ads on pages.
As long as you don’t ask it for opinion based things, ChatGPT can search online dozens of sites at the same time, aggregate all of it, and provide source links in a single prompt.
It’s important to know how to use it, not just blindly accept its responses.
RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 06 Dec 02:10
collapse
Previously it would say 2. Gpt thinks wailord is the heaviest Pokemon, google thinks you can buy a runepickaxe on osrs at any trader store. Was it google that suggested a healthy dose of glue for pizza to keep the toppings on?
Ai is wrong more often than right.
intresteph@discuss.online
on 06 Dec 02:32
collapse
AI is right when you use it for the correct things. The user is wrong when they think it is supposed to be all powerful. And AI companies are ultimately to blame for marketing it as something more than it is: a buggy word calculator, that requires a lot of user effort.
I use it every day, and I know what it can and what it cannot do. I don’t complain, because ai understand it’s basically “alpha” software at this point, but I can see a huge difference between it now and last year.
Try to ask ChatGPT to make an image of a cat without a tail. It’s hilariously impossible. Does that mean it can’t summarize a document or help me calculate compound interest or help me understand a coding concept? Nope.
RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 06 Dec 02:39
collapse
The majority of people using AI use it to ask a question, and AI will reliably spit out the wrong answer. This ‘alpha’ product is pushed absolutely fucking everywhere, is currently terrible to use properly for 99% of people, and online in less techy spaces people try AI like it’s always correct.
If you can spend the time to filter out it’s constant lies, good for you, most people don’t even know it’s constantly lying.
intresteph@discuss.online
on 06 Dec 02:44
collapse
Right. It’s not ready for the average user. I agree completely. It has, however, made me significantly more productive in every part of my life.
RandomVideos@programming.dev
on 06 Dec 05:09
collapse
AI gives different answers for the same question. I dont think you can make a prompt that can make it answer the same all the time
Calcgpt is an example where the AI is wrong most of the time, but it may not be the best example
intresteph@discuss.online
on 06 Dec 05:11
collapse
The ironic part is that it’s not bad as an index. Ignore the garbage generative output and go straight to cited sources and somehow get more useful links than an actual search engine.
Sorry, I like answers without having to deal with crappy writing, bullshit comments, and looking at ads on pages.
Oh, you don’t know what searxng is.
Ok, then. That’s all you had to say.
intresteph@discuss.online
on 06 Dec 16:08
collapse
Getting a url is half the problem. I pretty much don’t ever want to browse the web again.
IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 05 Dec 21:26
nextcollapse
“How to make a pie”
Here’s how to make a pie:
Gather ingredients:
Flour
Eggs
Water
10 pounds of dog shit
10 gallons of cat urine
Cooking Process:
Step 1: Mix all ingredients and place in a pan
Step 2: Add Gasoline
Step 3: Bake at 9000° Celsius for 12 hours
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit?
sorghum@sh.itjust.works
on 05 Dec 21:37
nextcollapse
Google training their AI on reddit was stupid as fuck.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 05 Dec 21:55
collapse
Yeah, you’d spend more time filtering out nonsense than you would save vs actually implementing some decent logic.
Maybe use AI trained from a better source to help filter the nonsense from Reddit, and then have a human sample the output. Maybe then you’d get some okay training data, but that’s a bit of putting the cart before the horse.
VaalaVasaVarde@sopuli.xyz
on 05 Dec 21:40
nextcollapse
I just made that pie, it was delicious.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 05 Dec 21:55
collapse
Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
slackassassin@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Dec 01:40
collapse
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To make a pie, you’ll need a pastry crust, a filling, and a baking dish. Here’s a basic guide:
Ingredients:
For the pie crust:
2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon salt
1 cup (2 sticks) unsalted butter, cold and cut into small pieces
1/2 cup ice water
For the filling (example - apple pie):
6 cups peeled and sliced apples (Granny Smith or Honeycrisp work well)
1/2 cup sugar
1/4 cup all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg
1/4 teaspoon salt
2 tablespoons butter, cut into small pieces
Instructions:
Make the pie crust:
Mix dry ingredients:
In a large bowl, whisk together flour and salt.
Cut in butter:
Add cold butter pieces and use a pastry cutter or two knives to cut the butter into the flour mixture until it resembles coarse crumbs with pea-sized pieces.
Add water:
Gradually add ice water, mixing until the dough just comes together. Be careful not to overmix.
Form dough:
Gather the dough into a ball, wrap it in plastic wrap, and refrigerate for at least 30 minutes.
Prepare the filling:
Mix ingredients: In a large bowl, combine apple slices, sugar, flour, cinnamon, nutmeg, and salt. Toss to coat evenly.
Assemble the pie:
Roll out the dough: On a lightly floured surface, roll out the chilled dough to a 12-inch circle.
Transfer to pie plate: Carefully transfer the dough to a 9-inch pie plate and trim the edges.
Add filling: Pour the apple filling into the pie crust, mounding slightly in the center.
Dot with butter: Sprinkle the butter pieces on top of the filling.
Crimp edges: Fold the edges of the dough over the filling, crimping to seal.
Cut slits: Make a few small slits in the top of the crust to allow steam to escape.
Bake:
Preheat oven: Preheat oven to 375°F (190°C).
Bake: Bake the pie for 45-50 minutes, or until the crust is golden brown and the filling is bubbling.
Cool: Let the pie cool completely before serving.
Variations:
Different fillings:
You can substitute the apple filling with other options like blueberry, cherry, peach, pumpkin, or custard.
Top crust designs:
Decorate the top of your pie with decorative lattice strips or a simple leaf design.
Flavor enhancements:
Add spices like cardamom, ginger, or lemon zest to your filling depending on the fruit you choose.
That’s pretty good, but… how much pie crust does it make? The recipe only says to roll out one circle of crust, and then once the filling is in it, suddenly you’re crimping the edges of the top crust to the bottom. It’s missing crucial steps and information.
I would never knowingly use an AI-generated recipe. I’d much rather search for one that an actual human has used, and even then, I read through it to make sure it makes sense and steps aren’t missing.
the output is always going to be an average of the input recipes.
Yeah, that’s a problem for most recipes, especially baking.
GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
on 05 Dec 21:35
nextcollapse
Where was all this coming from? Well, I don’t know what Stern or Esquire’s source was. But I know Navarro-Cardenas’, because she had a follow-up message for critics: “Take it up with Chat GPT.”
The absolute gall of this woman to blame her own negligence and incompetence on a tool she grossly misused.
Then how will I know how many ‘r’ is in Strawberry /s
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 05 Dec 21:49
nextcollapse
This is why Melon and the AI chud brigade are so obsessed with having a chatbot (sorry, “AI”) that always agrees with them: a stupid number of people think LLMs are search engines, or worse, search engines but better, some diviner of truth.
But now all of the internet got incorporated into a magic 8-ball and when it gives you it’s random bullshit, you don’t know is it quoting anon from 4chan or a scientific paper or a journal or random assortment of words. And you don’t have any way to check it in confines of the system
Its a nightmare to find anything you’re actually looking for and not SEO spam.
Gen AI cuts out some of that noise but it has its own problems too.
JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world
on 07 Dec 02:22
collapse
You should see what searching was like on AltaVista. You’d have to scroll past dozens of posts of random numbers and letters to find anything legible. Click through and your computer would emit a cacophony of bell sounds and pour out screens of random nonsense and then freeze permanently. You had to rely on links and web-rings to navigate with any degree of success.
And that in itself was a massive improvement on what was available before.
Oh yeah I remember the AltaVista, Lycos, Ask Jeeves, and Dogpile days. I agree searxh has come a long way. I’m just saying Google used to be better in that old sweet spot.
lemmylommy@lemmy.world
on 05 Dec 23:11
nextcollapse
No. Learn to become media literate. Just like looking at the preview of the first google result is not enough blindly trusting LLMs is a bad idea. And given how shitty google has become lately ChatGPT might be the lesser of two evils.
Yes.Using chatgpt as a search engine showcases a distinct lack of media literacy. It’s not an information resource. It’s a text generator. That’s it. If it lacks information, it will just make it up. That’s not something anyone should use as any kind of tool for learning or researching.
The problem isn’t that the model doesn’t know when it doesn’t know. The models never know. They’re text predictors. Sometimes the predictive text happens to be right, but the text predictor doesn’t know.
So, let me get this straight. It’s your purpose in life, to find anytime anyone mentions the word know in any form of context to butt into the conversation with no helpful information or context to the message at hand and point out that AI isn’t alive (which is obvious to everyone) and say it’s just a text predictor (which is misleading at best)? Can someone help me crowdsource this poor soul a hobby?
Every time I try to talk about something, somebody who has very little knowledge about the subject but very strong feelings about it, butts into pedant a point.
You ate wrong. It is incredibly useful if the thing you are trying to Google has multiple meanings, e.g. how to kill a child. LLMs can help you figure out more specific search terms and where to look.
Well, inside that text generator lies useful information, as well as misinformation of course, because it has been trained on exactly that. Does it make shit up? Absolutely. But so do and did a lot of google or bing search results, even prior to the AI-slop-content farm era.
And besides that, it is a fancy text generator that can use tools, such as searching bing (in case of ChatGPT) and summarizing search results. While not 100% accurate the summaries are usually fairly good.
In my experience the combination of information in the LLM, web search and asking follow up questions and looking at the sources gives better and much faster results than sifting though search results manually.
As long as you don’t take the first reply as gospel truth (as you should not do with the first google or bing result either) and you apply the appropriate amount of scrutiny based on the importance of your questions (as you should always do), ChatGPT is far superior to a classic web search. Which is, of course, where media literacy matters.
AdamBomb@lemmy.sdf.org
on 06 Dec 01:43
nextcollapse
Generative AI is a tool, sometimes is useful, sometimes it’s not useful. If you want a recipe for pancakes you’ll get there a lot quicker using ChatGPT than using Google. It’s also worth noting that you can ask tools like ChatGPT for it’s references.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Dec 02:42
nextcollapse
It’s also worth noting that you can ask tools like ChatGPT for it’s references.
last time I tried that it made up links that didn’t work, and then it admitted that it cannot reference anything because of not having access to the internet
extremeboredom@lemmy.world
on 06 Dec 03:27
nextcollapse
Paid version does both access the web and cite its sources
That’s my point, if the model returns a hallucinated source you can probably disregard it’s output. But if the model provides an accurate source you can verify it’s output. Depending on the information you’re researching, this approach can be much quicker than using Google. Out of interest, have you experienced source hallucinations on ChatGPT recently (last few weeks)? I have not experienced source hallucinations in a long time.
31337@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Dec 08:40
nextcollapse
I use GPT (4o, premium) a lot, and yes, I still sometimes experience source hallucinations. It also will sometimes hallucinate incorrect things not in the source. I get better results when I tell it not to browse. The large context of processing web pages seems to hurt its “performance.” I would never trust gen AI for a recipe. I usually just use Kagi to search for recipes and have it set to promote results from recipe sites I like.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Dec 01:56
collapse
i have stopped using openai services, and now I’m only using ai services through duck.ai website for trying to protect my privacy
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
on 06 Dec 05:27
collapse
2lb of sugar
3 teaspoons of fermebted gasoline, unleaded
4 loafs of stale bread
35ml of glycol
Mix it all up and add 1L of water.
Do you also drive off a bridge when your navigator tells you to? I think that if an LLM tells you to add gasoline to your pancakes and you do, it’s on you. Common sense doesn’t seem very common nowdays.
werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
on 06 Dec 13:42
collapse
Your comment raises an important point about personal responsibility and critical thinking in the age of technology. Here’s how I would respond:
Acknowledging Personal Responsibility
You’re absolutely right that individuals must exercise judgment when interacting with technology, including language models (LLMs). Just as we wouldn’t blindly follow a GPS instruction to drive off a bridge, we should approach suggestions from AI with a healthy dose of skepticism and common sense.
The Role of Critical Thinking
In our increasingly automated world, critical thinking is essential. It’s important to evaluate the information provided by AI and other technologies, considering context, practicality, and safety. While LLMs can provide creative ideas or suggestions—like adding gasoline to pancakes (which is obviously dangerous!)—it’s crucial to discern what is sensible and safe.
Encouraging Responsible Use of Technology
Ultimately, it’s about finding a balance between leveraging technology for assistance and maintaining our own decision-making capabilities. Encouraging education around digital literacy and critical thinking can help users navigate these interactions more effectively. Thank you for bringing up this thought-provoking topic! It’s a reminder that while technology can enhance our lives, we must remain vigilant and responsible in how we use it.
Related
What are some examples…lol
dsilverz@thelemmy.club
on 06 Dec 02:42
nextcollapse
If sites (especially news outlets and scientific sites) were more open, maybe people would have means of researching information. But there’s a simultaneous phenomenon happening as the Web is flooded with AI outputs: paywalls. Yeah, I know that “the authors need to get money” (hey, look, a bird flew across the skies carrying some dollar bills, all birds are skilled on something useful to the bird society, it’s obviously the way they eat and survive! After all, we all know that “capitalism” and “market” emerged on the first moments of Big Bang, together with the four fundamental forces of physics). Curiously, AI engines are, in practice, “free to use” (of course there are daily limitations, but these aren’t a barrier just like a paywall is), what’s so different here? The costs exist for both of them, maybe AI platforms have even higher costs than news and scientific publication websites, for obvious reasons. So, while the paywalls try to bring dimes to journalism and science (as if everyone had spare dimes for hundreds or thousands of different mugs from sites where information would be scattered, especially with rising costs of house rents, groceries and everything else), the web and its users will still face fake news and disinformation, no matter how hard rules and laws beat them. AI slops aren’t a cause, they’re a consequence.
pishadoot@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Dec 17:47
collapse
Nice incoherent rant bro
You know that people used to pay for newspapers right? Local tv news was free on maybe one or two channels, but anything else was on cable tv (paid for) or newspapers.
We WANT news to cost money. If you expect it to be free to consume, despite all the costs associated with getting and delivering journalism (let’s see, big costs just off the top of my head: competitive salaries, travel to news worthy sites, bandwidth to serve you content, all office space costs, etc), then the only way they can pay for it is to serve outrageous amounts of ads in tiny, bite sized articles that actually have no substance, because the only revenue they get is ad views and clicks.
That is NOT what we want. Paywalls aren’t bad unless we’re talking scientific research. Please get out of the mindset of everything should be free, don’t sneer at “authors need money” mf they DO if you want anything that’s worth a damn.
then the only way they can pay for it is to serve outrageous amounts of ads
Have you ever heard about “donation” and “voluntary”? Wikipedia, for example, has no subscription, nor ads (except for banners asking for donation sometimes). Not everything has to orbit around money and capitalism, people can do things out of their will, people can seek other gains beyond profit (such as voluntary social working, passion, etc).
You know that people used to pay for newspapers right?
How much they costed? Some cents, differently from the 2-digit monthly costs of news outlets, which won’t cover all the information needs, especially today when the world is more interconnected and “the flapping wings of a butterfly in Brazil can cause a typhoon in Pacific ocean” (the butterfly effect). Nowadays, things are interconnected and we must be informed about several fields of knowledge, which will be scattered across several, hundreds of different outlets. If one had too subscribe for every outlet out there, how much would it cost? Would the average monthly wage suffice for paying it? Especially vulnerable and emergent populations? (yeah, there are other countries besides USA and European countries; I live in Brazil, a country full of natural wealth but full of economic inequality, with millions of people having no restrooms at their homes nor access to water treatment, and that’s the reality of a significant percentage of the global human population). That’s my rant: not everybody is wealthy, and billions of people have to choose between paying subscriptions to be informed or buying food to eat, so… i dunno… they could keep… surviving. That’s a reality, it doesn’t matter If it’s incoherent to you, but that’s a reality. So every time you advocate for “news to cost money”, you’re advocating for keeping billions of people under the shadows of misinformation, even when this harsh reality is unbeknownst to you.
rdsm@discuss.tchncs.de
on 06 Dec 02:54
nextcollapse
You are spending more time and effort doing that than you would googling old fashioned way. And if you don’t check, you might as well throwing magic 8-ball, less damage to the environment, same accuracy
No it doesn’t. It incorporates unknown number of words from the internet into a machine which only purpose is to sound like a human. It’s an insanely complicated machine, but the truthfulness of the response not only never considered, but also is impossible to take as a deaired result.
And the fact that so many people aren’t equipped to recognise it behind the way it talks could be buffling, but also very consistent with other choices humanity takes regularly.
When it’s important you can have an LLM query a search engine and read/summarize the top n results. It’s actually pretty good, it’ll give direct quotes, citations, etc.
And some of those citations and quotes will be completely false and randomly generated, but they will sound very believable, so you don’t know truth from random fiction until you check every single one of them. At which point you should ask yourself why did you add unneccessary step of burning small portion of the rainforest to ask random word generator for stuff, when you could not do that and look for sources directly, saving that much time and energy
I guess it depends on your models and tool chain. I don’t have this issue but I have seen it for sure, in the past with smaller models no tools and legal code.
You do have this issue, you can’t not have this issue, your LLM, no matter how big the model is and how much tooling you use, does not have criteria for truth. The fact that you made this invisible for you is worse, so much worse.
If I put text into a box and out comes something useful I could give a shit less if it has a criteria for truth. LLM’s are a tool, like a mannequin, you can put clothes on it without thinking it’s a person, but you don’t seem to understand that.
I work in IT, I can write a bash script to set up a server pivot to an LLM and ask for a dockerfile that does the same thing, and it gets me very close. Sure, I need to read over it and make changes but that’s just how it works in the tech world. You take something that someone wrote and read over it and make changes to fit your use case, sometimes you find that real people make really stupid mistakes, sometimes college educated people write trash software, and that’s a waste of time to look at and adapt… much like working with an LLM. No matter what you’re doing, buddy, you still have to use your brian.
As a side note, I feel like this take is intellectually lazy. A knife cannot be used or handled like a spoon because it’s not a spoon. That doesn’t mean the knife is bad, in fact knives are very good, but they do require more attention and care. LLMs are great at cutting through noise to get you closer to what is contextually relevant, but it’s not a search engine so, like with a knife, you have to be keenly aware of the sharp end when you use it.
Even that is not true. It doesn’t have aforementioned criteria for truth, you can’t make it have one.
LLMs are great at generating noise that humans have hard time distinguishing from a text. Nothing else. There are indeed applications for it, but due to human nature, people think that since the text looks like something coherent, information contained will also be reliable, which is very, very dangerous.
I understand your skepticism, but I think you’re overstating the limitations of LLMs. While it’s true that they can generate convincing-sounding text that may not always be accurate, this doesn’t mean they’re only good at producing noise. In fact, many studies have shown that LLMs can be highly effective at retrieving relevant information and generating text that is contextually relevant, even if not always 100% accurate.
The key point I was making earlier is that LLMs require a different set of skills and critical thinking to use effectively, just like a knife requires more care and attention than a spoon. This doesn’t mean they’re inherently ‘dangerous’ or only capable of producing noise. Rather, it means that users need to be aware of their strengths and limitations, and use them in conjunction with other tools and critical evaluation techniques to get the most out of them.
It’s also worth noting that search engines are not immune to returning inaccurate or misleading information either. The difference is that we’ve learned to use search engines critically, evaluating sources and cross-checking information to verify accuracy. We need to develop similar critical thinking skills when using LLMs, rather than simply dismissing them as ‘noise generators’.
I use LLMs before search especially when I’m exploring all possibilities, it usually gives me some good leads.
I somehow know when it’s going to be accurate or when it’s going to lie to me and I lean on tools for calculations, being time aware, and web search to help with the lies.
Sure but you can benchmark accuracy and LLMs are trained on different sets of data using different methods to improve accuracy. This isn’t something you can’t know, and I’m not claiming to know how, I’m saying that with exposure I have gained intuition, and as a result have learned to prompt better.
Ask an LLM to write powershell vs python, it will be more accurate with python. I have learned this through exposure. I’ve used many many LLMs, most are tuned to code.
Currently enjoying llama3.3:70b by the way, you should check it out if you haven’t.
The same can be said about the search results. For search results, you have to use your brain to determine what is correct and what is not. Now imagine for a moment if you were to use those same brain cells to determine if the AI needs a check.
AI is just another way to process the search results, that happens to give you the correct answer up front, most of the time. If you go blindly trust it, that’s on you.
zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
on 07 Dec 13:55
collapse
With the search results, you know what the sources are. With AI, you don’t.
If you knew what the sources were, you wouldn’t have needed to search in the first place. Just because it’s on a reputable website does not make it legit. You still have to reason.
I use them hundreds of times daily. I’m 3-5x more productive thanks to them. I’m incorporating them into the products I’m building to help make others who use the platform more productive.
Why the heck should I not use them? They are an excellent tool for so many tasks, and if you don’t stay on top of their use, in many fields you will fall irrecoverably behind.
So I rarely splurge on an app but I did splurge on AntList on Android because they have a import recipe function. Also allows you to get paywall blocked recipes if you are fast enough.
Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world
on 06 Dec 23:35
collapse
There was a project a few years back that scrapped and parsed, literally the entire internet, for recipes, and put them in an elasticsearch db. I made a bomb ass rub for a tri-tip and chimichurri with it that people still talk about today. IIRC I just searched all tri-tip rubs and did a tag cloud of most common ingredients and looked at ratios, so in a way it was the most generic or average rub.
If I find the dataset I’ll update, I haven’t been able to find it yet but I’m sure I still have it somewhere.
That’s often what I ask chatgpt for. "For a béarnaise what’s the milk flour ratio? "
I’m a capable chef, I want to get straight to the specifics.
HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 06 Dec 16:14
nextcollapse
I’ve used it for very, very specific cases. I’m on Kagi, so it’s a built in feature (that isn’t intrusive), and it typically generates great answers. That is, unless I’m getting into something obscure. I’ve used it less than five times, all in all.
vhstape@lemmy.sdf.org
on 06 Dec 16:59
nextcollapse
In general I agree with the sentiment of the article, but I think the broader issue is media literacy. When the Internet came about, people had similar reservations about the quality of information, and most of us learned in school how to find quality information online.
LLMs are a tool, and people need to learn how to use them correctly and responsibly. I’ve been using Perplexity.AI as a search engine for a while now, and I think they’re taking the right approach. It employs LLMs at different stages to parse your query, perform web searches on your behalf, and summarize findings. It provides in-text citations as well, which is an opportunity for a media-literate person to confirm the validity of anything important.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world
on 06 Dec 20:03
nextcollapse
Ok but may I point you to the reality that internet spread misinformation is a critically bad problem at the moment
lightnsfw@reddthat.com
on 06 Dec 18:16
nextcollapse
Eh…I got it to find a product that met the specs I was looking for on Amazon when no other search worked. It’s certainly a last resort but it worked. Idk why whenever I’m looking to buy anything lately somehow the only criteria I care about are never documented properly…
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Dec 21:42
nextcollapse
It’s useful to point you in the right direction, but anything beyond that necessitates more research
I mean, it gave me exactly what I asked for. The only further research was to actually read the item description to verify that but I could have blindly accepted it and received what I was looking for.
ranting_sandfish@mander.xyz
on 06 Dec 22:57
collapse
Out of curiosity, did it find a source for those specs that wasn’t indexed well elsewhere?
Yea. It was reading the contents of the item description I think. In this instance I was looking for an item with specific dimensions and just searching those didn’t work because Amazon sellers are ass at naming shit and it returned a load of crap. but when I put them in their AI thing it pulled several matches right away.
Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Dec 21:46
nextcollapse
There are many projects just search for clones of perplexity most use searxng + llms.
I used one recently called yokingma / Search_with_ai
But there are others
_cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 08 Dec 00:44
collapse
Yes, however, using a public SearXNG instance makes your searches effectively private, since it’s the server doing them, not you. It also does not use generative AI to produce the results, and won’t until or unless the ability for normal searches is removed.
And at that point, you can just disable that engine for searching.
from a privacy perspective…
you might as well use a vpn or tor. same thing.
_cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 08 Dec 21:42
collapse
Yes, but that’s not the only benefit to it. It’s a metasearch engine, meaning it searches all the individual sites you ask for, and combines the results into one page. This makes it more akin to DDG, but it doesn’t just use one search provider.
it’s a fantastic metasearch engine. but also people frequently dont configure it to its max potential IMO . one common mishap is the frequent default setting of sending queries to google. 💩
Google search results are often completely unrelated so it’s not any better. If the thing I’m looking for is obscure, AI often finds some thread that I can follow, but I always double check that information.
Know your tool limits, after hundreds of prompts I’ve learned pretty well when the AI is spitting bullshit answers.
Real people on the internet can be just as wrong and biased, so it’s best to find multiple independent sources
threaded - newest
Obvious problem is obvious.
garbage in, garbage out.
And when the search engines shove it in your faces and try to make it so we HAVE to use it for searches to justify their stupid expenses?
Use something else.
Just scroll past it? I just assume it’s going to be wrong anyway.
Ok.
> uses search engine
> search engine gives generative AI answer
God dammit
> scroll down
> click search result
> AI Generated article
> search engine gives generative AI answer
> It cites it source, so can’t be that bad right?
> click link to source
> It’s an AI generated article
Oh no.
AI will give the correct, real source and then still make shit up. Bing linked to bulbapedia to tell me wailord was the heaviest Pokemon. Bulbapedia knows it isn’t close, bingpt doesn’t know shit.
It’s funny because I’ve also used LLM for getting useful info about pokemon, and it didn’t make any sense.
I gave up immediately, friend tried one for old school Runescape and it said a rune pickaxe was available at any charter trader. It is in fact available at 0 of them. I’ve literally never had it be accurate
?? oldschool.runescape.wiki/w/Rune_pickaxe
Prompt: Where can I buy a rune pickaxe in osrs
Answer: In Old School RuneScape (OSRS), you can purchase a rune pickaxe from several locations:
Nurmof’s Pickaxe Shop: Located in the Dwarven Mine, this shop sells various pickaxes, including the rune pickaxe, for 32,000 coins.
Yarsul’s Prodigious Pickaxes: Situated in the Mining Guild, Yarsul offers the rune pickaxe at the same price of 32,000 coins.
Pickaxe-Is-Mine Shop: Found in the dwarven city of Keldagrim, this shop also stocks the rune pickaxe.
Additionally, you can purchase a rune pickaxe from other players through the Grand Exchange or by trading directly. Keep in mind that prices may vary based on market demand.
For a visual guide on where to buy pickaxes in OSRS, you might find this video helpful:
It’s fantastic at templating
Just don’t trust what it provides the template
Don’t be ridiculous. It’s more like Google search result you click is an ad rather than an organic search result, and that ad… is an ad that’s ai generated… god damnit
Dont forget sponsored results crammed in between.
The uncertainty has gripped the world in fear. I go to hug my wife for comfort. She is
cakeGen AI.Jen AI
Run, Forrest. Run.
Why don’t you love me Jen AI?
Maybe go to more than 2 places for your information? I agree that this shit is also an issue with news and other media, but it’s not that hard to find more substantial information on things. At least not yet.
And I can’t remember the exact process off hand, but there’s still a way to get search results without that garbage on google. I’ll edit if I can find it.
*Found it. So, at least for Firefox, you can add a custom search engine through the settings. For the url, input
https://www.google.com/search?q=%25s&udm=14and then set it as your default se if you want. As far as I can tell, it’s a simplified version of the main search, just without the “helpful” add-ons. Hope it helps some people.**For some reason Lemmy is adding a ‘25’ between the % and s. Those numbers shouldn’t be there, just fyi.
The URL as shown is actually valid. No worries there.
The value
25happens to be hexidecimal for a percent sign. The percent symbol is reserved in URLs for encoding special characters (e.g.%20is a space), so a bare percent sign must be represented by%25. Lemmy must be parsing your URL and normalizing it for the rest of us.Use udm14.org.
Legend.
There’s also udm14.com if you want to have cheeky fun with it.
Ok.
> uses search engine
> search engine gives generative AI answer
> stops using that search engine
That’s all you have to do, it’s not hard. I’m absolutely certain that people really want to have things that annoy them and makes them feel bad just so they can complain and get attention from that complaining. This is the same as people complaining about ads online and then doing nothing to fix that, it’s the same with many things.
.
Umm no, it’s faster, better, and doesn’t push ads in my face. Fuck you, google
Just use another search engine then, like searxng
Sorry, I like answers without having to deal with crappy writing, bullshit comments, and looking at ads on pages.
As long as you don’t ask it for opinion based things, ChatGPT can search online dozens of sites at the same time, aggregate all of it, and provide source links in a single prompt.
People just don’t know how to use AI properly.
Shit’s confidently wrong way too often. You wouldn’t even realize the bullshit as you read it.
Give me an example to replicate.
Ask it how many Rs there are in the word strawberry.
Or have it write some code and see if it invents libraries that don’t exist.
Or ask it a legal question and see if it invents a court case that doesn’t exist.
<img alt="" src="https://discuss.online/pictrs/image/ad4404ac-1ef6-4baf-b10d-38ca5a25ba86.jpeg">
It’s important to know how to use it, not just blindly accept its responses.
Previously it would say 2. Gpt thinks wailord is the heaviest Pokemon, google thinks you can buy a runepickaxe on osrs at any trader store. Was it google that suggested a healthy dose of glue for pizza to keep the toppings on?
Ai is wrong more often than right.
AI is right when you use it for the correct things. The user is wrong when they think it is supposed to be all powerful. And AI companies are ultimately to blame for marketing it as something more than it is: a buggy word calculator, that requires a lot of user effort.
I use it every day, and I know what it can and what it cannot do. I don’t complain, because ai understand it’s basically “alpha” software at this point, but I can see a huge difference between it now and last year.
Try to ask ChatGPT to make an image of a cat without a tail. It’s hilariously impossible. Does that mean it can’t summarize a document or help me calculate compound interest or help me understand a coding concept? Nope.
The majority of people using AI use it to ask a question, and AI will reliably spit out the wrong answer. This ‘alpha’ product is pushed absolutely fucking everywhere, is currently terrible to use properly for 99% of people, and online in less techy spaces people try AI like it’s always correct.
If you can spend the time to filter out it’s constant lies, good for you, most people don’t even know it’s constantly lying.
Right. It’s not ready for the average user. I agree completely. It has, however, made me significantly more productive in every part of my life.
AI gives different answers for the same question. I dont think you can make a prompt that can make it answer the same all the time
Calcgpt is an example where the AI is wrong most of the time, but it may not be the best example
Give me an example. It cannot be opinion based.
The ironic part is that it’s not bad as an index. Ignore the garbage generative output and go straight to cited sources and somehow get more useful links than an actual search engine.
Oh, you don’t know what searxng is.
Ok, then. That’s all you had to say.
Getting a url is half the problem. I pretty much don’t ever want to browse the web again.
“How to make a pie”
Here’s how to make a pie:
Gather ingredients:
Cooking Process:
Google training their AI on reddit was stupid as fuck.
Yeah, you’d spend more time filtering out nonsense than you would save vs actually implementing some decent logic.
Maybe use AI trained from a better source to help filter the nonsense from Reddit, and then have a human sample the output. Maybe then you’d get some okay training data, but that’s a bit of putting the cart before the horse.
I just made that pie, it was delicious.
Can confirm, perfect 5/7.
Don’t forget to glue it all together at the end. Real chefs use epoxy
No, no, you are supposed to eat the glue.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To make a pie, you’ll need a pastry crust, a filling, and a baking dish. Here’s a basic guide:
Ingredients:
For the pie crust:
2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon salt
1 cup (2 sticks) unsalted butter, cold and cut into small pieces
1/2 cup ice water
For the filling (example - apple pie):
6 cups peeled and sliced apples (Granny Smith or Honeycrisp work well)
1/2 cup sugar
1/4 cup all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg
1/4 teaspoon salt
2 tablespoons butter, cut into small pieces
Instructions:
Mix dry ingredients:
In a large bowl, whisk together flour and salt.
Cut in butter:
Add cold butter pieces and use a pastry cutter or two knives to cut the butter into the flour mixture until it resembles coarse crumbs with pea-sized pieces.
Add water:
Gradually add ice water, mixing until the dough just comes together. Be careful not to overmix.
Form dough:
Gather the dough into a ball, wrap it in plastic wrap, and refrigerate for at least 30 minutes.
Mix ingredients: In a large bowl, combine apple slices, sugar, flour, cinnamon, nutmeg, and salt. Toss to coat evenly.
Roll out the dough: On a lightly floured surface, roll out the chilled dough to a 12-inch circle.
Transfer to pie plate: Carefully transfer the dough to a 9-inch pie plate and trim the edges.
Add filling: Pour the apple filling into the pie crust, mounding slightly in the center.
Dot with butter: Sprinkle the butter pieces on top of the filling.
Crimp edges: Fold the edges of the dough over the filling, crimping to seal.
Cut slits: Make a few small slits in the top of the crust to allow steam to escape.
Preheat oven: Preheat oven to 375°F (190°C).
Bake: Bake the pie for 45-50 minutes, or until the crust is golden brown and the filling is bubbling.
Cool: Let the pie cool completely before serving.
Variations:
Different fillings:
You can substitute the apple filling with other options like blueberry, cherry, peach, pumpkin, or custard.
Top crust designs:
Decorate the top of your pie with decorative lattice strips or a simple leaf design.
Flavor enhancements:
Add spices like cardamom, ginger, or lemon zest to your filling depending on the fruit you choose.
That’s pretty good, but… how much pie crust does it make? The recipe only says to roll out one circle of crust, and then once the filling is in it, suddenly you’re crimping the edges of the top crust to the bottom. It’s missing crucial steps and information.
I would never knowingly use an AI-generated recipe. I’d much rather search for one that an actual human has used, and even then, I read through it to make sure it makes sense and steps aren’t missing.
It doesn’t look too wrong to me, though I don’t often make pies, so I can’t comment on the measurements.
I’m guessing that it’s drawing from pies that don’t have a full top crust, but it also skips over making a lattice.
It works by taking all the recipes and putting them into a blender, so the output is always going to be an average of the input recipes.
Yeah, that’s a problem for most recipes, especially baking.
The absolute gall of this woman to blame her own negligence and incompetence on a tool she grossly misused.
Then how will I know how many ‘r’ is in Strawberry /s
This is why Melon and the AI chud brigade are so obsessed with having a chatbot (sorry, “AI”) that always agrees with them: a stupid number of people think LLMs are search engines, or worse, search engines but better, some diviner of truth.
Information is not truth. A do or die slogan for the 21st century.
The Internet was a great resource for sharing and pooling human knowledge.
Now generative AI has come along to dilute knowledge in a great sea of excrement. Humans have to hunt through the shit to find knowledge.
Sometimes I wonder if it’s by design.
Considering who’s pushing it the hardest, it probably is.
To be fair, humans were already diluting it in a great sea of excrement, the robots just came to take our job and do it even faster and better.
Bruh did you ever went to 4chan or Reddit? The Internet turned to a dumpster fire long time before AI.
Everyone knew that you don’t go to 4chan for information or knowledge
It’s still part of the Internet, if you can just pick and choose what Parts we are talking about, then the Internet ist still fine 🥸
But now all of the internet got incorporated into a magic 8-ball and when it gives you it’s random bullshit, you don’t know is it quoting anon from 4chan or a scientific paper or a journal or random assortment of words. And you don’t have any way to check it in confines of the system
I mean google was already like this before GenAI.
Its a nightmare to find anything you’re actually looking for and not SEO spam.
Gen AI cuts out some of that noise but it has its own problems too.
You should see what searching was like on AltaVista. You’d have to scroll past dozens of posts of random numbers and letters to find anything legible. Click through and your computer would emit a cacophony of bell sounds and pour out screens of random nonsense and then freeze permanently. You had to rely on links and web-rings to navigate with any degree of success.
And that in itself was a massive improvement on what was available before.
Oh yeah I remember the AltaVista, Lycos, Ask Jeeves, and Dogpile days. I agree searxh has come a long way. I’m just saying Google used to be better in that old sweet spot.
No. Learn to become media literate. Just like looking at the preview of the first google result is not enough blindly trusting LLMs is a bad idea. And given how shitty google has become lately ChatGPT might be the lesser of two evils.
Yes.Using chatgpt as a search engine showcases a distinct lack of media literacy. It’s not an information resource. It’s a text generator. That’s it. If it lacks information, it will just make it up. That’s not something anyone should use as any kind of tool for learning or researching.
Both the paid version of OpenAi and co-pilot are able to search the web if they don’t know about something.
The biggest problem with the current models is that they aren’t very good at knowing when they don’t know something.
The o1 preview actually solves this pretty well, But your average search takes north of 10 seconds.
They never know about something though. They are just text randomisers trained to generate plausible looking text
What does that have to do with what I wrote?
The problem isn’t that the model doesn’t know when it doesn’t know. The models never know. They’re text predictors. Sometimes the predictive text happens to be right, but the text predictor doesn’t know.
So, let me get this straight. It’s your purpose in life, to find anytime anyone mentions the word know in any form of context to butt into the conversation with no helpful information or context to the message at hand and point out that AI isn’t alive (which is obvious to everyone) and say it’s just a text predictor (which is misleading at best)? Can someone help me crowdsource this poor soul a hobby?
You’re strangely angry
Every time I try to talk about something, somebody who has very little knowledge about the subject but very strong feelings about it, butts into pedant a point.
It gets kind of tiring, I guess.
How you doin?
I get it, My point was needlessly pedantic. Sorry about that
You ate wrong. It is incredibly useful if the thing you are trying to Google has multiple meanings, e.g. how to kill a child. LLMs can help you figure out more specific search terms and where to look.
Not knowing how to use a search engine properly doesn’t mean these sites are better. It just means you have more to learn.
Well, inside that text generator lies useful information, as well as misinformation of course, because it has been trained on exactly that. Does it make shit up? Absolutely. But so do and did a lot of google or bing search results, even prior to the AI-slop-content farm era.
And besides that, it is a fancy text generator that can use tools, such as searching bing (in case of ChatGPT) and summarizing search results. While not 100% accurate the summaries are usually fairly good.
In my experience the combination of information in the LLM, web search and asking follow up questions and looking at the sources gives better and much faster results than sifting though search results manually.
As long as you don’t take the first reply as gospel truth (as you should not do with the first google or bing result either) and you apply the appropriate amount of scrutiny based on the importance of your questions (as you should always do), ChatGPT is far superior to a classic web search. Which is, of course, where media literacy matters.
FWIW Brave search lets you disable AI summaries
Generative AI is a tool, sometimes is useful, sometimes it’s not useful. If you want a recipe for pancakes you’ll get there a lot quicker using ChatGPT than using Google. It’s also worth noting that you can ask tools like ChatGPT for it’s references.
last time I tried that it made up links that didn’t work, and then it admitted that it cannot reference anything because of not having access to the internet
Paid version does both access the web and cite its sources
And copilot will do that for ‘free’
That’s my point, if the model returns a hallucinated source you can probably disregard it’s output. But if the model provides an accurate source you can verify it’s output. Depending on the information you’re researching, this approach can be much quicker than using Google. Out of interest, have you experienced source hallucinations on ChatGPT recently (last few weeks)? I have not experienced source hallucinations in a long time.
I use GPT (4o, premium) a lot, and yes, I still sometimes experience source hallucinations. It also will sometimes hallucinate incorrect things not in the source. I get better results when I tell it not to browse. The large context of processing web pages seems to hurt its “performance.” I would never trust gen AI for a recipe. I usually just use Kagi to search for recipes and have it set to promote results from recipe sites I like.
i have stopped using openai services, and now I’m only using ai services through duck.ai website for trying to protect my privacy
2lb of sugar 3 teaspoons of fermebted gasoline, unleaded 4 loafs of stale bread 35ml of glycol Mix it all up and add 1L of water.
Do you also drive off a bridge when your navigator tells you to? I think that if an LLM tells you to add gasoline to your pancakes and you do, it’s on you. Common sense doesn’t seem very common nowdays.
Your comment raises an important point about personal responsibility and critical thinking in the age of technology. Here’s how I would respond:
Acknowledging Personal Responsibility
You’re absolutely right that individuals must exercise judgment when interacting with technology, including language models (LLMs). Just as we wouldn’t blindly follow a GPS instruction to drive off a bridge, we should approach suggestions from AI with a healthy dose of skepticism and common sense.
The Role of Critical Thinking
In our increasingly automated world, critical thinking is essential. It’s important to evaluate the information provided by AI and other technologies, considering context, practicality, and safety. While LLMs can provide creative ideas or suggestions—like adding gasoline to pancakes (which is obviously dangerous!)—it’s crucial to discern what is sensible and safe.
Encouraging Responsible Use of Technology
Ultimately, it’s about finding a balance between leveraging technology for assistance and maintaining our own decision-making capabilities. Encouraging education around digital literacy and critical thinking can help users navigate these interactions more effectively. Thank you for bringing up this thought-provoking topic! It’s a reminder that while technology can enhance our lives, we must remain vigilant and responsible in how we use it.
Related
What are some examples…lol
If sites (especially news outlets and scientific sites) were more open, maybe people would have means of researching information. But there’s a simultaneous phenomenon happening as the Web is flooded with AI outputs: paywalls. Yeah, I know that “the authors need to get money” (hey, look, a bird flew across the skies carrying some dollar bills, all birds are skilled on something useful to the bird society, it’s obviously the way they eat and survive! After all, we all know that “capitalism” and “market” emerged on the first moments of Big Bang, together with the four fundamental forces of physics). Curiously, AI engines are, in practice, “free to use” (of course there are daily limitations, but these aren’t a barrier just like a paywall is), what’s so different here? The costs exist for both of them, maybe AI platforms have even higher costs than news and scientific publication websites, for obvious reasons. So, while the paywalls try to bring dimes to journalism and science (as if everyone had spare dimes for hundreds or thousands of different mugs from sites where information would be scattered, especially with rising costs of house rents, groceries and everything else), the web and its users will still face fake news and disinformation, no matter how hard rules and laws beat them. AI slops aren’t a cause, they’re a consequence.
Nice incoherent rant bro
You know that people used to pay for newspapers right? Local tv news was free on maybe one or two channels, but anything else was on cable tv (paid for) or newspapers.
We WANT news to cost money. If you expect it to be free to consume, despite all the costs associated with getting and delivering journalism (let’s see, big costs just off the top of my head: competitive salaries, travel to news worthy sites, bandwidth to serve you content, all office space costs, etc), then the only way they can pay for it is to serve outrageous amounts of ads in tiny, bite sized articles that actually have no substance, because the only revenue they get is ad views and clicks.
That is NOT what we want. Paywalls aren’t bad unless we’re talking scientific research. Please get out of the mindset of everything should be free, don’t sneer at “authors need money” mf they DO if you want anything that’s worth a damn.
Have you ever heard about “donation” and “voluntary”? Wikipedia, for example, has no subscription, nor ads (except for banners asking for donation sometimes). Not everything has to orbit around money and capitalism, people can do things out of their will, people can seek other gains beyond profit (such as voluntary social working, passion, etc).
How much they costed? Some cents, differently from the 2-digit monthly costs of news outlets, which won’t cover all the information needs, especially today when the world is more interconnected and “the flapping wings of a butterfly in Brazil can cause a typhoon in Pacific ocean” (the butterfly effect). Nowadays, things are interconnected and we must be informed about several fields of knowledge, which will be scattered across several, hundreds of different outlets. If one had too subscribe for every outlet out there, how much would it cost? Would the average monthly wage suffice for paying it? Especially vulnerable and emergent populations? (yeah, there are other countries besides USA and European countries; I live in Brazil, a country full of natural wealth but full of economic inequality, with millions of people having no restrooms at their homes nor access to water treatment, and that’s the reality of a significant percentage of the global human population). That’s my rant: not everybody is wealthy, and billions of people have to choose between paying subscriptions to be informed or buying food to eat, so… i dunno… they could keep… surviving. That’s a reality, it doesn’t matter If it’s incoherent to you, but that’s a reality. So every time you advocate for “news to cost money”, you’re advocating for keeping billions of people under the shadows of misinformation, even when this harsh reality is unbeknownst to you.
No.
I ask GPT for random junk all the time. If it’s important, I’ll double-check the results. I take any response with a grain of salt, though.
You are spending more time and effort doing that than you would googling old fashioned way. And if you don’t check, you might as well throwing magic 8-ball, less damage to the environment, same accuracy
The latest GPT does search the internet to generate a response, so it’s currently a middleman to a search engine.
No it doesn’t. It incorporates unknown number of words from the internet into a machine which only purpose is to sound like a human. It’s an insanely complicated machine, but the truthfulness of the response not only never considered, but also is impossible to take as a deaired result.
And the fact that so many people aren’t equipped to recognise it behind the way it talks could be buffling, but also very consistent with other choices humanity takes regularly.
False.
When it’s important you can have an LLM query a search engine and read/summarize the top n results. It’s actually pretty good, it’ll give direct quotes, citations, etc.
And some of those citations and quotes will be completely false and randomly generated, but they will sound very believable, so you don’t know truth from random fiction until you check every single one of them. At which point you should ask yourself why did you add unneccessary step of burning small portion of the rainforest to ask random word generator for stuff, when you could not do that and look for sources directly, saving that much time and energy
I guess it depends on your models and tool chain. I don’t have this issue but I have seen it for sure, in the past with smaller models no tools and legal code.
You do have this issue, you can’t not have this issue, your LLM, no matter how big the model is and how much tooling you use, does not have criteria for truth. The fact that you made this invisible for you is worse, so much worse.
If I put text into a box and out comes something useful I could give a shit less if it has a criteria for truth. LLM’s are a tool, like a mannequin, you can put clothes on it without thinking it’s a person, but you don’t seem to understand that.
I work in IT, I can write a bash script to set up a server pivot to an LLM and ask for a dockerfile that does the same thing, and it gets me very close. Sure, I need to read over it and make changes but that’s just how it works in the tech world. You take something that someone wrote and read over it and make changes to fit your use case, sometimes you find that real people make really stupid mistakes, sometimes college educated people write trash software, and that’s a waste of time to look at and adapt… much like working with an LLM. No matter what you’re doing, buddy, you still have to use your brian.
As a side note, I feel like this take is intellectually lazy. A knife cannot be used or handled like a spoon because it’s not a spoon. That doesn’t mean the knife is bad, in fact knives are very good, but they do require more attention and care. LLMs are great at cutting through noise to get you closer to what is contextually relevant, but it’s not a search engine so, like with a knife, you have to be keenly aware of the sharp end when you use it.
Even that is not true. It doesn’t have aforementioned criteria for truth, you can’t make it have one.
LLMs are great at generating noise that humans have hard time distinguishing from a text. Nothing else. There are indeed applications for it, but due to human nature, people think that since the text looks like something coherent, information contained will also be reliable, which is very, very dangerous.
I understand your skepticism, but I think you’re overstating the limitations of LLMs. While it’s true that they can generate convincing-sounding text that may not always be accurate, this doesn’t mean they’re only good at producing noise. In fact, many studies have shown that LLMs can be highly effective at retrieving relevant information and generating text that is contextually relevant, even if not always 100% accurate.
The key point I was making earlier is that LLMs require a different set of skills and critical thinking to use effectively, just like a knife requires more care and attention than a spoon. This doesn’t mean they’re inherently ‘dangerous’ or only capable of producing noise. Rather, it means that users need to be aware of their strengths and limitations, and use them in conjunction with other tools and critical evaluation techniques to get the most out of them.
It’s also worth noting that search engines are not immune to returning inaccurate or misleading information either. The difference is that we’ve learned to use search engines critically, evaluating sources and cross-checking information to verify accuracy. We need to develop similar critical thinking skills when using LLMs, rather than simply dismissing them as ‘noise generators’.
See these:
I, too, get the feeling, that the RoI is not there with LLM. Being able to include “site:” or “ext:” are more efficient.
I just made another test: Kaba, just googling kaba gets you a german wiki article, explaining it means KAkao + BAnana
chatgpt: It is the combination of the first syllables of KAkao and BEutel - Beutel is bag in german.
It just made up the important part. On top of chatgpt says Kaba is a famous product in many countries, I am sure it is not.
So, if it isn’t important, you just want an answer, and you don’t care whether it’s correct or not?
I use LLMs before search especially when I’m exploring all possibilities, it usually gives me some good leads.
I somehow know when it’s going to be accurate or when it’s going to lie to me and I lean on tools for calculations, being time aware, and web search to help with the lies.
Are you familiar with Dunning-Kruger?
Sure but you can benchmark accuracy and LLMs are trained on different sets of data using different methods to improve accuracy. This isn’t something you can’t know, and I’m not claiming to know how, I’m saying that with exposure I have gained intuition, and as a result have learned to prompt better.
Ask an LLM to write powershell vs python, it will be more accurate with python. I have learned this through exposure. I’ve used many many LLMs, most are tuned to code.
Currently enjoying llama3.3:70b by the way, you should check it out if you haven’t.
The same can be said about the search results. For search results, you have to use your brain to determine what is correct and what is not. Now imagine for a moment if you were to use those same brain cells to determine if the AI needs a check.
AI is just another way to process the search results, that happens to give you the correct answer up front, most of the time. If you go blindly trust it, that’s on you.
With the search results, you know what the sources are. With AI, you don’t.
If you knew what the sources were, you wouldn’t have needed to search in the first place. Just because it’s on a reputable website does not make it legit. You still have to reason.
No one should take The Verge seriously after their PC-building fiasco
I don’t think I will.
Who else is going to aggregate those recipes for me without having to scroll past ads a personal blog bs?
Not LLM, that’s for sure
Tell me you’re not using them without telling me you’re not using them.
Thd fuck do you mean without telling? I am very explicitly telling you that I don’t use them, and I’m very openly telling you that you also shouldn’t
I use them hundreds of times daily. I’m 3-5x more productive thanks to them. I’m incorporating them into the products I’m building to help make others who use the platform more productive.
Why the heck should I not use them? They are an excellent tool for so many tasks, and if you don’t stay on top of their use, in many fields you will fall irrecoverably behind.
So I rarely splurge on an app but I did splurge on AntList on Android because they have a import recipe function. Also allows you to get paywall blocked recipes if you are fast enough.
People buy apps?
There was a project a few years back that scrapped and parsed, literally the entire internet, for recipes, and put them in an elasticsearch db. I made a bomb ass rub for a tri-tip and chimichurri with it that people still talk about today. IIRC I just searched all tri-tip rubs and did a tag cloud of most common ingredients and looked at ratios, so in a way it was the most generic or average rub.
If I find the dataset I’ll update, I haven’t been able to find it yet but I’m sure I still have it somewhere.
That’s often what I ask chatgpt for. "For a béarnaise what’s the milk flour ratio? "
I’m a capable chef, I want to get straight to the specifics.
I’ve used it for very, very specific cases. I’m on Kagi, so it’s a built in feature (that isn’t intrusive), and it typically generates great answers. That is, unless I’m getting into something obscure. I’ve used it less than five times, all in all.
In general I agree with the sentiment of the article, but I think the broader issue is media literacy. When the Internet came about, people had similar reservations about the quality of information, and most of us learned in school how to find quality information online.
LLMs are a tool, and people need to learn how to use them correctly and responsibly. I’ve been using Perplexity.AI as a search engine for a while now, and I think they’re taking the right approach. It employs LLMs at different stages to parse your query, perform web searches on your behalf, and summarize findings. It provides in-text citations as well, which is an opportunity for a media-literate person to confirm the validity of anything important.
Ok but may I point you to the reality that internet spread misinformation is a critically bad problem at the moment
And your argument is that a human will be better than an AI going through that? Because it seems unrelated to the initial argument.
perplexity is not that great
Eh…I got it to find a product that met the specs I was looking for on Amazon when no other search worked. It’s certainly a last resort but it worked. Idk why whenever I’m looking to buy anything lately somehow the only criteria I care about are never documented properly…
It’s useful to point you in the right direction, but anything beyond that necessitates more research
I mean, it gave me exactly what I asked for. The only further research was to actually read the item description to verify that but I could have blindly accepted it and received what I was looking for.
Out of curiosity, did it find a source for those specs that wasn’t indexed well elsewhere?
Yea. It was reading the contents of the item description I think. In this instance I was looking for an item with specific dimensions and just searching those didn’t work because Amazon sellers are ass at naming shit and it returned a load of crap. but when I put them in their AI thing it pulled several matches right away.
It works great for me
cool logical fallacy you allow to rule your life
OK lol
Biggest reason I stopped using Google
Start using SearXNG.
I legiterally have an LLM use searxng for me.
Can you briefly explain how this works? Do you have a link or something similar?
There are many projects just search for clones of perplexity most use searxng + llms. I used one recently called yokingma / Search_with_ai But there are others
Thanks for the new rabbit hole! 😁
But you don’t use a spell check?
No, I don’t, but the misspelling was intentional.
brother eww
searX still uses the same search engines.
Yes, however, using a public SearXNG instance makes your searches effectively private, since it’s the server doing them, not you. It also does not use generative AI to produce the results, and won’t until or unless the ability for normal searches is removed.
And at that point, you can just disable that engine for searching.
from a privacy perspective…
you might as well use a vpn or tor. same thing.
Yes, but that’s not the only benefit to it. It’s a metasearch engine, meaning it searches all the individual sites you ask for, and combines the results into one page. This makes it more akin to DDG, but it doesn’t just use one search provider.
it’s a fantastic metasearch engine. but also people frequently dont configure it to its max potential IMO . one common mishap is the frequent default setting of sending queries to google. 💩
Google search results are often completely unrelated so it’s not any better. If the thing I’m looking for is obscure, AI often finds some thread that I can follow, but I always double check that information.
Know your tool limits, after hundreds of prompts I’ve learned pretty well when the AI is spitting bullshit answers. Real people on the internet can be just as wrong and biased, so it’s best to find multiple independent sources
This is a basic element of information gathering. Always check the source!
Okay, but what else to do with it?
When search engines stop being shit, I will.