Comment on Google has sent internet into ‘spiral of decline’, claims DeepMind co-founder

• GigglyBobble@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  It’s pretty trivial to fact check an answer

  People don't do it though and often parrot bullshit.

  source

  • Zeth0s@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    People who do so aren’t smart enough to use internet anyway. With or without AI it wouldn’t change anything for them, they stay stupid

    source
• madnificent@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Perplexity.ai has been my go to for this reason.

  It often brings up bad solutions to a problem and checking the sources it references shows it regulary misses the gist of these sources.

  There sources it selects are often not the ones I end up using. They are starting point, but not the best starting point.

  What it is good for is for finding content when I don’t know the terminology of the domain. It is a starting point ready to lead me astray with exquisitely written content.

  Find trustworthy sources and use them.

  source

  • Zeth0s@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It is more of a proof of concept at the moment, but it shows the potential

    source

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      That’s what’s usually gets said about lots of alternative fusion energy generation methods that later turn out to be impossible to have net-positive energy generation.

      And this is just one example. Another example: tons of medical compounds end up dropper at the medical testing stage because of their nasty side effects or it turns out their “positive” effects are indistinguisheable from the placebo effect.

      The point being that you can’t actually extrapolative from “neat concept that shows potential” even to merelly “will works”, much less to “will be a great success”.

      PS: Equally, one can’t just say it’s not going to be a great success - being a “neat concept that shows potential” has a pretty low informational content when it comes to predicting the future, worse so when there are people monetarilly heavilly invested into it who have a strong interest in making it look like a “neat concept that shows potential” whilst hiding any early stage problem.

      source

      • Zeth0s@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You are mixing sci-fi level of cutting edge basic research (fusion), with commercial products (chatgpt). They are 2 very different type of proof of concepts.

        And both will likely revolutionize human society. Fusion will simply commercially become a thing in 30/50 years. AI has been on the market for years now. Generative models are also few years old. They are simply becoming better and now new products can be built on top of them

        source

        • -> View More Comments