4 ms·
I think 30% is still impressive. Imagine if we treated search engines this way.. “30% of the time someone googled a software problem and clicked the first link
by oceanplexian 3y ago
I think 30% is still impressive. Imagine if we treated search engines this way.. “30% of the time someone googled a software problem and clicked the first link it was the wrong answer”. I don’t think anyone would be shocked by such a groundbreaking finding.
- vba616 3y agoWell...as it happens, I have a recent example of Google getting something trivial wrong and ChatGPT getting it right. But oddly that doesn't change my opinion of ChatGPT. The only reason I know that ChatGPT was right is because I blindly followed the first Googled suggestion. If I started with ChatGPT, then I would have to verify the answer somehow. If I use Google, I should verify the answer. But ChatGPT cannot do that job. Wikipedia is starting to feel as useless to me as ChatGPT. I don't know if anyone is actually replacing the articles with AI generated fiction at scale yet, or whether it's still an artisan, human-centered craft but the more I click on references, the more I find they are uncheckable, even if it's ambiguous whether they are fraudulent. People write rants on a topic and cite a single book without page numbers five times. Or, of course, dead links to websites without archive.org.