3 ms·

> Instead of searching for webpages that have information about a topic, we're going to ask an AI. I think this is probably true for some people, the same sort

> Instead of searching for webpages that have information about a topic, we're going to ask an AI. I think this is probably true for some people, the same sort of person who sees something on Facebook and assumes that it's true. [1] But there are quite a lot of people for whom "according to whom?" is the next question after being told something factual. For them, I think search's job is to find relevant sources and get out of the way. But I think even finding out is a long way away. The main thing that ChatGPT has nailed is glibness. It produces text that sounds authoritative, whether or not it's correct. And it's often incorrect. People may try ChatGPT search out of novelty or because it feels human. But if they depend on it and feel the real-world impact of a confidently wrong answer, they're going to treat it as a human that's untrustworthy. A blowhard, a liar, a fool. So I'm sure the major search players are going to be very cautious rolling out chat-like things. Google has spent decades building up consumer trust, and the don't need a zillion articles about people who a too-confident chat steered wrong. [1] E.g., That men in white vans are kidnappers: vhttps://www.cnn.com/2019/12/04/tech/facebook-white-vans/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/04/tech/facebook-white-vans/inde...

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> But if they depend on it and feel the real-world impact of a confidently wrong answer, they're going to treat it as a human that's untrustworthy. A blowhard, a liar, a fool. Maybe that's good. There are glib liars on the net, and not all of them are ChatGPT. If people learn to be skeptical of fine-sounding content on the net, maybe they'll apply it to humans, too.
- xg15 4y ago
  Yes, but how would you practically do that? The most basic technique for estimating trust in an answer today is to check the sources, see who said it, why, who is agreeing with them, etc. It some AI just spits out an answer without any references, you cannot do that. You either have to blindly trust the answer, which will be dangerous, or you'll have to blindly distrust the answer, at which point the AI will be useless.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Step 1: No sources? No trust. Step 2: Sources? Check them. Do they exist at all? Do they say what the thing in question says they say? Step 3: Check for other (non-cited) sources that confirm what the cited sources say. Check for other sources that dispute it.
    - rgrieselhuber 4y ago
      Also, who funded the sources and what biases do they have?
Cyberdog 4y ago
> But I think even finding out is a long way away. The main thing that ChatGPT has nailed is glibness. It produces text that sounds authoritative, whether or not it's correct. And it's often incorrect. Perfect example I found a while back: If you know Chinese or Japanese, ask ChatGPT for the stroke order of a certain character and watch how confidently it tells you how to draw a nonsensical scribble. Even when you ask it for the stroke order of 一, it will tell you to draw a vertical line!

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

> But if they depend on it and feel the real-world impact of a confidently wrong answer, they're going to treat it as a human that's untrustworthy. A blowhard, a liar, a fool. Maybe that's good. There are glib liars on the net, and not all of them are ChatGPT. If people learn to be skeptical of fine-sounding content on the net, maybe they'll apply it to humans, too.

xg15 4y ago
Yes, but how would you practically do that? The most basic technique for estimating trust in an answer today is to check the sources, see who said it, why, who is agreeing with them, etc. It some AI just spits out an answer without any references, you cannot do that. You either have to blindly trust the answer, which will be dangerous, or you'll have to blindly distrust the answer, at which point the AI will be useless.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Step 1: No sources? No trust. Step 2: Sources? Check them. Do they exist at all? Do they say what the thing in question says they say? Step 3: Check for other (non-cited) sources that confirm what the cited sources say. Check for other sources that dispute it.
  - rgrieselhuber 4y ago
    Also, who funded the sources and what biases do they have?

Cyberdog 4y ago

> But I think even finding out is a long way away. The main thing that ChatGPT has nailed is glibness. It produces text that sounds authoritative, whether or not it's correct. And it's often incorrect. Perfect example I found a while back: If you know Chinese or Japanese, ask ChatGPT for the stroke order of a certain character and watch how confidently it tells you how to draw a nonsensical scribble. Even when you ask it for the stroke order of 一, it will tell you to draw a vertical line!