3 ms·
> I have to check Bing's sources when I use it anyway, because what it says is often simply wrong. But at least it gives you the sources, unlike ChatGPT. (And,
by LeoPanthera 4y ago
> I have to check Bing's sources when I use it anyway, because what it says is often simply wrong.
But at least it gives you the sources, unlike ChatGPT. (And, at least in my experience so far, it is not "often" wrong all. I've had good results.)
- erinnh 4y agoYes and I like that Bing gives it's sources. But I also find it rather fatiguing to have to check the sources every time. I also don't know for sure if the times it gave me correct answer were actually correct or if I simply didn't catch the mistake?
- strangetortoise 4y agoI have heard this type of reply to this remark (from my side) a few times now. It has made me curious: Are you a type of person that often checks the sources on Wikipedia? Anecdotally: I know that Wikipedia is not always correct. But I feel like I can build an intuition and reason on what pages I can reasonably trust on Wikipedia, since in my experience, the inaccurate bits I have encountered tend to be in certain categories. However it's much harder to feel confident about my intuition about ChatGPTs' correctness, since my exposure has led me to believe that the hallucinations are fairly random, and not concentrated in particular topics. This makes the tool much less attractive for me, as I feel like I need to double check every written word. Perhaps I should be less trustful of Wikipedia...
- LeoPanthera 4y ago> Are you a type of person that often checks the sources on Wikipedia? Well, as a semi-regular editor on Wikipedia, I'm probably the wrong person to ask.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 4y agowhen the claims on Wikipedia are outlandish.. yeah i check the source.