3 ms·

Yeah, but its not as reliable as just restricting your search to Wikipedia or the appropriate academic journals or even chatting with a librarian!

TeMPOraL 4y ago
Sure, when the topic matters or I need to study it in depth, I can still go to Wikipedia or PubMed or Arxiv. But there are plenty of searches one does that are trivial, or serve to illuminate the problem space, and cover topics that in which I can rely on common sense to correct wrong advice. And the issue with non-technical topics, the kind applicable to mass audience - like e.g. cooking or parenting or hygiene - are very hard to search about online, because all results are bullshit pseudo articles written to drive traffic and deliver ads. So it's not that ChatGPT is so good, but more that Internet for normal people is complete trash, and ChatGPT nicely cuts straight through it.
- b3morales 4y ago
  But if so this isn't because of its nature (the fact that it's an LLM), but because of its inputs. An LLM fed the same bullshit pseudo articles you refer to would likewise spit out more bullshit. If ChatGPT works it's because its sources have been carefully curated.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Fair. But the practical reality right now is that ChatGPT delivers useful results without the noise, whereas normal web search does not. It blows the web out of the water when it comes to value to effort ratio of generic web searches. It won't last forever, but I'm enjoying it for as long as I can.
- Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
  Indeed. If I could have the Google from 20 years ago, I probably wouldn't be so impressed with ChatGPT as search engine. But with the Google (and the web) of today, where it's practically impossible to find reliable information about many subjects without adding "site:reddit.com" or "wikipedia", I find it extremely useful.

3 ms·

Yeah, but its not as reliable as just restricting your search to Wikipedia or the appropriate academic journals or even chatting with a librarian!

by nathan_compton 4y ago

TeMPOraL 4y ago
Sure, when the topic matters or I need to study it in depth, I can still go to Wikipedia or PubMed or Arxiv. But there are plenty of searches one does that are trivial, or serve to illuminate the problem space, and cover topics that in which I can rely on common sense to correct wrong advice. And the issue with non-technical topics, the kind applicable to mass audience - like e.g. cooking or parenting or hygiene - are very hard to search about online, because all results are bullshit pseudo articles written to drive traffic and deliver ads. So it's not that ChatGPT is so good, but more that Internet for normal people is complete trash, and ChatGPT nicely cuts straight through it.
- b3morales 4y ago
  But if so this isn't because of its nature (the fact that it's an LLM), but because of its inputs. An LLM fed the same bullshit pseudo articles you refer to would likewise spit out more bullshit. If ChatGPT works it's because its sources have been carefully curated.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Fair. But the practical reality right now is that ChatGPT delivers useful results without the noise, whereas normal web search does not. It blows the web out of the water when it comes to value to effort ratio of generic web searches. It won't last forever, but I'm enjoying it for as long as I can.
- Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
  Indeed. If I could have the Google from 20 years ago, I probably wouldn't be so impressed with ChatGPT as search engine. But with the Google (and the web) of today, where it's practically impossible to find reliable information about many subjects without adding "site:reddit.com" or "wikipedia", I find it extremely useful.