this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
579 points (92.5% liked)

memes

10698 readers
3251 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 !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

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
[–] gratux@lemmy.blahaj.zone 175 points 1 week 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
[–] rescue_toaster@lemm.ee 85 points 1 week 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!

[–] sleen@lemmy.zip 37 points 1 week ago

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

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week 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.

[–] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 33 points 1 week ago (3 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@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (7 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.

[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I only go to the googs for maps.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week 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)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

We have new feature, use it!

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

... Fine!

breaks old feature even harder

[–] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

yeah, but at least we can vet that shit better that the unsourced and hallucinated drivel provided by ChatGPT

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 57 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 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.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

If it can’t do that imagine adding nuance

[–] kopasz7@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] kopasz7@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago (2 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).

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I know this is off topic, but every time i see you comment of a thread all i can see is the pepsi logo (i use the sync app for reference)

[–] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

You know, just for you: I just changed it to the Coca Cola santa :D

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 34 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Did you chatgpt this title?

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 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 (2 replies)
[–] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week 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)
[–] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week 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.

[–] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 week 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)
[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago

The type of question where you don't even know what you don't know.

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week 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.

[–] dis_honestfamiliar@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tacosplease@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 week ago (3 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Both suck now.

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

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 13 points 1 week ago

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

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week 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@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week 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@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

just call it cgpt for short

Computer Generated Partial Truths

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NickwithaC@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is entirely Google's fault.

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 week 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)
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cmder@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Just duck it bro. (Add !chat to your query or use ai assistant in results)

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

ChatGPT is a tool under development and it will definitely improve in the long term. There is no reason to shit on it like that.

Instead, focus on the real problems: AI not being open-source, AI being under the control of a few monopolies, and there being little to none regulations that ensure it develops in a healthy direction.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

I wonder where people can go. Wikipedia maybe. ChatGPT is better than google for answering most questions where getting the answer wrong won't have catastrophic consequences. It is also a good place to get started in researching something. Unfortunately, most people don't know how to assess the potential problems. Those people will also have trouble if they try googling the answer, as they will choose some biased information source if it's a controversial topic, usually picking a source that matches their leaning. There aren't too many great sources of information on the internet anymore, it's all tainted by partisans or locked behind pay-walls. Even if you could get a free source for studies, many are weighted to favor whatever result the researcher wanted. It's a pretty bleak world out there for good information.

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] sus@programming.dev 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Acters@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Top is proprietary llms vs bottom self hosted llms. Bothe end with you getting smacked in the face but one looks far cooler or smarter to do, while the other one is streamlined web app that gets you there in one step.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Creddit@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week 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 ›