- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
You must log in or register to comment.
Ok.
> uses search engine
> search engine gives generative AI answer
God dammit
> scroll down
> click search result
> AI Generated article
> search engine gives generative AI answer
> It cites it source, so can’t be that bad right?
> click link to source
> It’s an AI generated article
Oh no.
Use udm14.org.
Legend.
There’s also udm14.com if you want to have cheeky fun with it.
The uncertainty has gripped the world in fear. I go to hug my wife for comfort. She is
cakeGen AI.Jen AI
Run, Forrest. Run.
Why don’t you love me Jen AI?
Don’t be ridiculous. It’s more like Google search result you click is an ad rather than an organic search result, and that ad… is an ad that’s ai generated… god damnit
Maybe go to more than 2 places for your information? I agree that this shit is also an issue with news and other media, but it’s not that hard to find more substantial information on things. At least not yet.
And I can’t remember the exact process off hand, but there’s still a way to get search results without that garbage on google. I’ll edit if I can find it.
*Found it. So, at least for Firefox, you can add a custom search engine through the settings. For the url, input
https://www.google.com/search?q=%25s&udm=14and then set it as your default se if you want. As far as I can tell, it’s a simplified version of the main search, just without the “helpful” add-ons. Hope it helps some people.**For some reason Lemmy is adding a ‘25’ between the % and s. Those numbers shouldn’t be there, just fyi.
**For some reason Lemmy is adding a ‘25’ between the % and s. Those numbers shouldn’t be there, just fyi.
The URL as shown is actually valid. No worries there.
The value
25happens to be hexidecimal for a percent sign. The percent symbol is reserved in URLs for encoding special characters (e.g.%20is a space), so a bare percent sign must be represented by%25. Lemmy must be parsing your URL and normalizing it for the rest of us.
Dont forget sponsored results crammed in between.
Ok.
> uses search engine
> search engine gives generative AI answer
> stops using that search engine
That’s all you have to do, it’s not hard. I’m absolutely certain that people really want to have things that annoy them and makes them feel bad just so they can complain and get attention from that complaining. This is the same as people complaining about ads online and then doing nothing to fix that, it’s the same with many things.
deleted by creator
The Internet was a great resource for sharing and pooling human knowledge.
Now generative AI has come along to dilute knowledge in a great sea of excrement. Humans have to hunt through the shit to find knowledge.
To be fair, humans were already diluting it in a great sea of excrement, the robots just came to take our job and do it even faster and better.
Sometimes I wonder if it’s by design.
Considering who’s pushing it the hardest, it probably is.
I mean google was already like this before GenAI.
Its a nightmare to find anything you’re actually looking for and not SEO spam.
Gen AI cuts out some of that noise but it has its own problems too.
You should see what searching was like on AltaVista. You’d have to scroll past dozens of posts of random numbers and letters to find anything legible. Click through and your computer would emit a cacophony of bell sounds and pour out screens of random nonsense and then freeze permanently. You had to rely on links and web-rings to navigate with any degree of success.
And that in itself was a massive improvement on what was available before.
Oh yeah I remember the AltaVista, Lycos, Ask Jeeves, and Dogpile days. I agree searxh has come a long way. I’m just saying Google used to be better in that old sweet spot.
The Internet was a great resource for sharing and pooling human knowledge.
Bruh did you ever went to 4chan or Reddit? The Internet turned to a dumpster fire long time before AI.
Everyone knew that you don’t go to 4chan for information or knowledge
It’s still part of the Internet, if you can just pick and choose what Parts we are talking about, then the Internet ist still fine 🥸
But now all of the internet got incorporated into a magic 8-ball and when it gives you it’s random bullshit, you don’t know is it quoting anon from 4chan or a scientific paper or a journal or random assortment of words. And you don’t have any way to check it in confines of the system
Where was all this coming from? Well, I don’t know what Stern or Esquire’s source was. But I know Navarro-Cardenas’, because she had a follow-up message for critics: “Take it up with Chat GPT.”
The absolute gall of this woman to blame her own negligence and incompetence on a tool she grossly misused.
This is why Melon and the AI chud brigade are so obsessed with having a chatbot (sorry, “AI”) that always agrees with them: a stupid number of people think LLMs are search engines, or worse, search engines but better, some diviner of truth.
Information is not truth. A do or die slogan for the 21st century.
No.
I ask GPT for random junk all the time. If it’s important, I’ll double-check the results. I take any response with a grain of salt, though.
You are spending more time and effort doing that than you would googling old fashioned way. And if you don’t check, you might as well throwing magic 8-ball, less damage to the environment, same accuracy
The latest GPT does search the internet to generate a response, so it’s currently a middleman to a search engine.
No it doesn’t. It incorporates unknown number of words from the internet into a machine which only purpose is to sound like a human. It’s an insanely complicated machine, but the truthfulness of the response not only never considered, but also is impossible to take as a deaired result.
And the fact that so many people aren’t equipped to recognise it behind the way it talks could be buffling, but also very consistent with other choices humanity takes regularly.
deleted by creator
And some of those citations and quotes will be completely false and randomly generated, but they will sound very believable, so you don’t know truth from random fiction until you check every single one of them. At which point you should ask yourself why did you add unneccessary step of burning small portion of the rainforest to ask random word generator for stuff, when you could not do that and look for sources directly, saving that much time and energy
I, too, get the feeling, that the RoI is not there with LLM. Being able to include “site:” or “ext:” are more efficient.
I just made another test: Kaba, just googling kaba gets you a german wiki article, explaining it means KAkao + BAnana
chatgpt: It is the combination of the first syllables of KAkao and BEutel - Beutel is bag in german.
It just made up the important part. On top of chatgpt says Kaba is a famous product in many countries, I am sure it is not.
deleted by creator
LLMs are great at cutting through noise
Even that is not true. It doesn’t have aforementioned criteria for truth, you can’t make it have one.
LLMs are great at generating noise that humans have hard time distinguishing from a text. Nothing else. There are indeed applications for it, but due to human nature, people think that since the text looks like something coherent, information contained will also be reliable, which is very, very dangerous.deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You do have this issue, you can’t not have this issue, your LLM, no matter how big the model is and how much tooling you use, does not have criteria for truth. The fact that you made this invisible for you is worse, so much worse.
deleted by creator
So, if it isn’t important, you just want an answer, and you don’t care whether it’s correct or not?
deleted by creator
I somehow know when it’s going to be accurate
Are you familiar with Dunning-Kruger?
deleted by creator
The same can be said about the search results. For search results, you have to use your brain to determine what is correct and what is not. Now imagine for a moment if you were to use those same brain cells to determine if the AI needs a check.
AI is just another way to process the search results, that happens to give you the correct answer up front, most of the time. If you go blindly trust it, that’s on you.
With the search results, you know what the sources are. With AI, you don’t.
If you knew what the sources were, you wouldn’t have needed to search in the first place. Just because it’s on a reputable website does not make it legit. You still have to reason.
And when the search engines shove it in your faces and try to make it so we HAVE to use it for searches to justify their stupid expenses?
Use something else.
In general I agree with the sentiment of the article, but I think the broader issue is media literacy. When the Internet came about, people had similar reservations about the quality of information, and most of us learned in school how to find quality information online.
LLMs are a tool, and people need to learn how to use them correctly and responsibly. I’ve been using Perplexity.AI as a search engine for a while now, and I think they’re taking the right approach. It employs LLMs at different stages to parse your query, perform web searches on your behalf, and summarize findings. It provides in-text citations as well, which is an opportunity for a media-literate person to confirm the validity of anything important.
Ok but may I point you to the reality that internet spread misinformation is a critically bad problem at the moment
And your argument is that a human will be better than an AI going through that? Because it seems unrelated to the initial argument.
perplexity is not that great
Biggest reason I stopped using Google
Google search results are often completely unrelated so it’s not any better. If the thing I’m looking for is obscure, AI often finds some thread that I can follow, but I always double check that information.
Know your tool limits, after hundreds of prompts I’ve learned pretty well when the AI is spitting bullshit answers. Real people on the internet can be just as wrong and biased, so it’s best to find multiple independent sourcesThis is a basic element of information gathering. Always check the source!
Obvious problem is obvious.
garbage in, garbage out.
When search engines stop being shit, I will.
Okay, but what else to do with it?
I’ve used it for very, very specific cases. I’m on Kagi, so it’s a built in feature (that isn’t intrusive), and it typically generates great answers. That is, unless I’m getting into something obscure. I’ve used it less than five times, all in all.
Then how will I know how many ‘r’ is in Strawberry /s
Generative AI is a tool, sometimes is useful, sometimes it’s not useful. If you want a recipe for pancakes you’ll get there a lot quicker using ChatGPT than using Google. It’s also worth noting that you can ask tools like ChatGPT for it’s references.
It’s also worth noting that you can ask tools like ChatGPT for it’s references.
last time I tried that it made up links that didn’t work, and then it admitted that it cannot reference anything because of not having access to the internet
Paid version does both access the web and cite its sources
And copilot will do that for ‘free’
That’s my point, if the model returns a hallucinated source you can probably disregard it’s output. But if the model provides an accurate source you can verify it’s output. Depending on the information you’re researching, this approach can be much quicker than using Google. Out of interest, have you experienced source hallucinations on ChatGPT recently (last few weeks)? I have not experienced source hallucinations in a long time.
I use GPT (4o, premium) a lot, and yes, I still sometimes experience source hallucinations. It also will sometimes hallucinate incorrect things not in the source. I get better results when I tell it not to browse. The large context of processing web pages seems to hurt its “performance.” I would never trust gen AI for a recipe. I usually just use Kagi to search for recipes and have it set to promote results from recipe sites I like.
i have stopped using openai services, and now I’m only using ai services through duck.ai website for trying to protect my privacy
2lb of sugar 3 teaspoons of fermebted gasoline, unleaded 4 loafs of stale bread 35ml of glycol Mix it all up and add 1L of water.
Do you also drive off a bridge when your navigator tells you to? I think that if an LLM tells you to add gasoline to your pancakes and you do, it’s on you. Common sense doesn’t seem very common nowdays.
Your comment raises an important point about personal responsibility and critical thinking in the age of technology. Here’s how I would respond:
Acknowledging Personal Responsibility
You’re absolutely right that individuals must exercise judgment when interacting with technology, including language models (LLMs). Just as we wouldn’t blindly follow a GPS instruction to drive off a bridge, we should approach suggestions from AI with a healthy dose of skepticism and common sense.
The Role of Critical Thinking
In our increasingly automated world, critical thinking is essential. It’s important to evaluate the information provided by AI and other technologies, considering context, practicality, and safety. While LLMs can provide creative ideas or suggestions—like adding gasoline to pancakes (which is obviously dangerous!)—it’s crucial to discern what is sensible and safe.
Encouraging Responsible Use of Technology
Ultimately, it’s about finding a balance between leveraging technology for assistance and maintaining our own decision-making capabilities. Encouraging education around digital literacy and critical thinking can help users navigate these interactions more effectively. Thank you for bringing up this thought-provoking topic! It’s a reminder that while technology can enhance our lives, we must remain vigilant and responsible in how we use it.
Related
What are some examples…lol
