this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
447 points (93.1% liked)

memes

10636 readers
1819 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] FinishingDutch 33 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I gave it a math problem to illustrate this and it got it wrong

If it can’t do that imagine adding nuance

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Well, math is not really a language problem, so it's understandable LLMs struggle with it more.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

But it means it’s not “thinking” as the public perceives ai

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Hmm, yeah, AI never really did think. I can't argue with that.

It's really strange now if I mentally zoom out a bit, that we have machines that are better at languange based reasoning than logic based (like math or coding).

[–] tacosplease 15 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

That is a valid tactic for programming or how-to questions, provided you know not to unthinkingly drink bleach if it says to.

[–] TrickDacy 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

I'm with you. Never heard that. Never.

[–] [email protected] 136 points 18 hours ago (7 children)

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
[–] [email protected] 69 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

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!

[–] Buddahriffic 3 points 6 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 18 hours ago

"Great question, before i give you a response, let me introduce you to raid shadow legends!"

[–] spankmonkey 18 points 18 hours ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Aielman15 24 points 18 hours ago (13 children)

I have been using Duck for a few years now and I honestly prefer it to Google at this point. I'll sometimes switch to Google if I don't find anything on Duck, but that happens once every three or four months, if that.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Kyle_The_G 10 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I'm in sciences and the AI overview gives wrong answers ALL THE TIME. If students or god forbid professionals rely on it thats bad news.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

We have new feature, use it!

No, its broken and stupid, I prefer old feature.

... Fine!

breaks old feature even harder

[–] [email protected] 5 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] TrickDacy 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I have tried a few replacements for Google but I've yet to find anything remotely as effective for searches about things close to me. Like if I'm looking for a restaurant near me, kagi, startpage, and DDG are not good. Is qwant good for a use case like that? Haven't heard about it before.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

I’ve had some success but it goes off of your ISPs server location so for me it’s not very useful.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago

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...)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Did you chatgpt this title?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

"Infinitively" sounds like it could be a music album for a techno band.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

The infinitive is the form of a verb that in English is said “to [x]”

For example, “to run” is the infinitive form of “run.”

OP probably meant “infinitely” worse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

"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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ch00f 18 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

At least it said if it exists, instead of telling you when it was written (hallucinating)

[–] ch00f 7 points 14 hours ago

Maybe it’s trying to motivate me to become a writer.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Anticorp 10 points 12 hours ago

I'm somewhat surprised that ChatGPT has never replied with "just Google it, bruh!" considering how often that answer appears in its data set.

[–] GreenKnight23 11 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

just call it cgpt for short

Computer Generated Partial Truths

[–] Anticorp 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Sadly, partial truths are an improvement over some sources these days.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 hours ago

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.

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie 15 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Both suck now.

I have to say, look it up online and verify your sources.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 15 hours ago

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

[–] Takumidesh 22 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago

"Let's ask MULTIVAC!"

[–] NickwithaC 10 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

This is entirely Google's fault.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ApatheticCactus 1 points 10 hours ago

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.

[–] Creddit 6 points 16 hours ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›