4 ms·

Bing is exposing source links for their answers, one-click verification. Wolfram has a much wider scope of information than I think most people realize, but yo

Bing is exposing source links for their answers, one-click verification. Wolfram has a much wider scope of information than I think most people realize, but your example of local hunting laws is a good example of what they don't cover. I asked Wolfram, and it told me how many calories I'd burn while hunting. I asked Google, and the first link was to Hunting Regulations - Outdoor Annual - TPWD - Texas.gov, excellent result. I asked OpenAI, and it cautioned that it isn't up-to-date, since it's just a language model, advised that TPWD is authoritative (correct), and gave an accurate summary of the five major point of gun laws in Texas before reminding me to check with TPWD for the latest. I've had some misses with OpenAI, but this was an excellent answer. I've also had some misses with Google, but this turned out to be something they surfaced excellent link for, too.

nicce 4y ago
> I've had some misses with OpenAI, but this was an excellent answer. I've also had some misses with Google, but this turned out to be something they surfaced excellent link for, too. Think about the bias - maybe you were able to verify that the answer was excellent because you already knew the laws? Or you Googled and compared it? In both cases, ChatGPT did not perfom alone in providing validity. It kinda gave a summary for search results of Google, or for your pre-knowledge. Imagine if someone who does not know the laws, asks about them. ChatGPT cannot offer any validity alone for the user, at least yet. ChatGPT provides often excellent answers, I am not denying it. But the bad 5% ruins everything if they sound alike for the correct 95%, and if ChatGPT cannot provide any validity for them, at least yet. Often you ask things you don’t know or haven’t searched before.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > if someone who does not know the laws, asks about them. ChatGPT cannot offer any validity alone for the user There is a lot of SEO-optimised nonsense pertaining to the law.

nicce 4y ago

> I've had some misses with OpenAI, but this was an excellent answer. I've also had some misses with Google, but this turned out to be something they surfaced excellent link for, too. Think about the bias - maybe you were able to verify that the answer was excellent because you already knew the laws? Or you Googled and compared it? In both cases, ChatGPT did not perfom alone in providing validity. It kinda gave a summary for search results of Google, or for your pre-knowledge. Imagine if someone who does not know the laws, asks about them. ChatGPT cannot offer any validity alone for the user, at least yet. ChatGPT provides often excellent answers, I am not denying it. But the bad 5% ruins everything if they sound alike for the correct 95%, and if ChatGPT cannot provide any validity for them, at least yet. Often you ask things you don’t know or haven’t searched before.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> if someone who does not know the laws, asks about them. ChatGPT cannot offer any validity alone for the user There is a lot of SEO-optimised nonsense pertaining to the law.