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.
AI is pretty over-rated but the Anti-AI forces way overblow the problems associated with AI.
it will definitely improve in the long term.
Citation needed
There is no reason to shit on it like that.
Right now there is, because of how wrong it and other AIs can be, with the average person using the first answer as correct without double checking
I wonder where people can go. Wikipedia maybe. ChatGPT is better than google for answering most questions where getting the answer wrong won't have catastrophic consequences. It is also a good place to get started in researching something. Unfortunately, most people don't know how to assess the potential problems. Those people will also have trouble if they try googling the answer, as they will choose some biased information source if it's a controversial topic, usually picking a source that matches their leaning. There aren't too many great sources of information on the internet anymore, it's all tainted by partisans or locked behind pay-walls. Even if you could get a free source for studies, many are weighted to favor whatever result the researcher wanted. It's a pretty bleak world out there for good information.
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.
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.
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.
"Great question, before i give you a response, let me introduce you to raid shadow legends!"
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.
Ive been using only duckduck for years now. If I don’t find something there, I dont need it.
We have new feature, use it!
No, its broken and stupid, I prefer old feature.
... Fine!
breaks old feature even harder
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 not enjoyed Qwant - tried it as my default but I'm back to DDG. I just want a functional Google again (boolean operators please...)
yeah, but at least we can vet that shit better that the unsourced and hallucinated drivel provided by ChatGPT
Even adding, “Reddit” after a search only brings up posts from 7 years ago.
The irony is that Gemini Pro is actually better than ChatGPT (which is not saying a ton, as OpenAI have completely stagnated and even some small open models are better now), but whatever they use for search is beyond horrible.
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.
Did you chatgpt this title?
"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.
Did you cat I farted it?
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.
At least it said if it exists, instead of telling you when it was written (hallucinating)
Maybe it’s trying to motivate me to become a writer.
Same happens every time I've tried to use it for search. Will be radioactive for this type of thing until someone figures that out. Quite frustrating, if they spent as much time on determining the difference between when a user wants objective information with citations as they do determining if the response breaks content guidelines, we might actually have something useful. Instead, we get AI slop.
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.
Google used to be amazing at this. You could literally search "who dat guy dat paint dem melty clocks" and get the right answer immediately.
I mean tbf you can still search "who DAT guy" and it will give you Salvador Dali in one of those boxes that show up before the search results.
The type of question where you don't even know what you don't know.
Have they? Don't think I've heard that once and I work with people who use chat gpt themselves
I'm with you. Never heard that. Never.
How long until ChatGPT starts responding "It's been generally agreed that the answer to your question is to just ask ChatGPT"?
I'm somewhat surprised that ChatGPT has never replied with "just Google it, bruh!" considering how often that answer appears in its data set.
Both suck now.
I have to say, look it up online and verify your sources.
just call it cgpt for short
Computer Generated Partial Truths
Sadly, partial truths are an improvement over some sources these days.
Which is still better than "elementary truths that will quickly turn into shit I make up without warning", which is where ChatGPT is and will forever be stuck at.
I say, "Just search it." Not interested in being free advertising for Google.
This is entirely Google's fault.
Google intentionally made search worse, but even if they want to make it better again, there's very little they can do. The web itself is extremely low signal:noise, and it's almost impossible to write an algorithm that lets the signal shine through (while also giving any search results back)
It would still be better if quality search (not extracting more and more money in the short term) was their goal.
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 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)
"Let's ask MULTIVAC!"
Just check your tea leaves.
Google isn’t a search engine any more. It stopped being that some years ago.
Now it’s more accurately described as a shitty content feed that can be weakly filtered using key words.
Chatgpt is this real
Might as well. All the sites are just AI articles anyway
@RmDebArc_5 I'm all about "DuckDuckGo this !" 🦆
Just ask Elon
“Will you go out with me?”
Is it weird I use ms copilot on a regular?
Solely because it will cite its source on answers so I don't have to sift through pages of results.
I mean I get wanting this feature, but there is a dosen alternatives that more privacy respecting (Brave, Perplexity etc)
I use copilot expressly because I want my direct exposure to Ansible (such trash) to be as little as possible so as not to pollute my experience and unlearn programming, so I query, copy, validate and paste. Let its mind turn to jello, and spare mine!
