Comment on I totally missed the point when PeerTube got so good

• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  ChatGPT is a moderately useful tertiary source. Quoting Wikipedia isn’t research, but using Wikipedia to find primary sources and reading those is a good faith effort. Likewise, asking ChatGPT in and of itself isn’t research, but it can be a valid research aid if you use it to find relevant primary sources.

  source

  • deranger@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    At least some editor will usually make sure Wikipedia is correct. There’s nobody ensuring chatGPT is correct.

    source

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Just using the “information” it regurgitates isn’t very useful, which is why I didn’t recommend doing that. Whether the information summarized by Wikipedia and ChatGPT is accurate really isn’t important, you use those tools to find primary sources.

      source

      • deranger@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I’d argue that it’s very important, especially since more and more people are using it. Wikipedia is generally correct and people, myself included, edit incorrect things. ChatGPT is a black box and there’s no user feedback. It’s also stupid to waste resources to run an inefficient LLM that a regular search and a few minutes of time, along with like a bite of an apple worth of energy, could easily handle. After all that, you’re going to need to check all those sources chatGPT used anyways, so how much time is it really saving you? At least with Wikipedia I know other people have looked at the same things I’m looking at, and a small percentage of those people will actually correct errors.

        source

        • -> View More Comments