Comment on People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies
Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 days agoBuddy that’s great if you know the topic or keyword to search for, if you don’t and only have a vague query that you’re trying to find more about to learn some keywords or topics to search for, you can use AI.
You can grandstand about tools and what ever other Luddite shit you want, at the end of the day despite all your raging you are the only one going to miss out despite whatever you fanatically tell yourself.
Olap@lemmy.world 5 days ago
I’m still sceptical, any chance you could share some prompts which illustrate this concept?
Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 days ago
Sure an hour ago I had watched a video about smaller scales and physics below planck length. And I was curious, if we can classify smaller scales into conceptual groups, where they interact with physics in their own different ways, what would the opposite end of the spectrum be. From there I was able to discover and search wikipedia for terms such as Cosmological horizon, brane cosmology, etc.
In the end there was only theories on higher observable magnitudes, but it was a fun rabbit hole I could not have explored through traditional search engines - especially not the gimped shit we have today.
Olap@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Wikipedia isn’t to be referenced for scientific papers, I’m sure we all agree there. But it does do almost exactly what you described. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe has some great further reading links. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology has some great reads too. And for the time short: simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology which also has Related Pages
I’m still yet to see how AI beats a search engine. And your example hasn’t convinced me either
Deceptichum@quokk.au 5 days ago
If you still can’t see how natural language search is useful, that’s fine. We can, and we’re happy to keep using it.