4 ms·

> If it did not then I dont see how looking up with AI can be worse Looking up with AI is worse because its WRONG a lot more. Random rabbit holes, misdirection

> If it did not then I dont see how looking up with AI can be worse Looking up with AI is worse because its WRONG a lot more. Random rabbit holes, misdirection. Stuff that SOUNDS right but is not. It takes a lot of time and energy to discern the wheat from the chaff. Sure you can find misleading or outdated blogposts or forum discussions with a google search but the information is far more grounded in correctness then anything from an LLM.

ziml77 2y ago
This is my experience with trying to use AI for coding tasks too. I've had back-and-forths with AI that involve me trying to get it to fix things to get a final working function, but since it doesn't actually understand the code, it fails to implement the fixes correctly. Meanwhile, the stuff you find through a traditional web search tends to either be from a blog post where someone is posting actual working code snippets, or from StackOverflow where the code tends to be untested initially but then gets comments, votes, and updates over time that help boost confidence in the code. It's far more reliable to do a web search.
- nsonha 2y ago
  why do people pretend that google search is straight forward > the stuff you find through a traditional web search tends to either be from a blog post Is that so? Most of my hits have been stack overflow and github issues, where there are false positives, same problem to AI hallucination
  - skydhash 2y ago
    Because it is? I tend to do my queries as keywords instead as questions and I tend to get good result. But most of the time, I'm just seeking the online manual to understand how things works and what is happening, not an exact solution. It's the equivalent of using a library to write a thesis. That only requires to get familiar with the terminology of the domain, know where the best works are and how to use indexes and content tables.
kamaal 2y ago
>>Sure you can find misleading or outdated blogposts or forum discussions with a google search but the information is far more grounded in correctness then anything from an LLM. This was the case only 2 - 3 months back. But the assistants all moved to GPT-4/Sonnet and the newer versions are just a whole lot better and accurate. That's the whole idea behind AI, when you do find something is wrong, the error function kicks in and the weights are tweaked to more correct values. When GPT-5 comes along it will be another whole level accurate. In fact its already close to 90% accurate for most tasks with GPT-5 you can say that number could go to 95% or so. Which is actually fairly good enough for nearly all the production work you could do. Of course in coming years, Im guessing coding without AI assistance will be somewhat similar to writing code on paper or something like that. You can still do it for fun, but you won't be any where productive at a job.
- acedTrex 2y ago
  I use gpt4o and sonnet regularly. They are so often wrong. Just yesterday gpt4o spit out consistently incorrect tree sitter queries and refused to accept it was wrong. Its all so pointless and slowed me down compared to just reading the documentation.

ziml77 2y ago

This is my experience with trying to use AI for coding tasks too. I've had back-and-forths with AI that involve me trying to get it to fix things to get a final working function, but since it doesn't actually understand the code, it fails to implement the fixes correctly. Meanwhile, the stuff you find through a traditional web search tends to either be from a blog post where someone is posting actual working code snippets, or from StackOverflow where the code tends to be untested initially but then gets comments, votes, and updates over time that help boost confidence in the code. It's far more reliable to do a web search.

nsonha 2y ago
why do people pretend that google search is straight forward > the stuff you find through a traditional web search tends to either be from a blog post Is that so? Most of my hits have been stack overflow and github issues, where there are false positives, same problem to AI hallucination
- skydhash 2y ago
  Because it is? I tend to do my queries as keywords instead as questions and I tend to get good result. But most of the time, I'm just seeking the online manual to understand how things works and what is happening, not an exact solution. It's the equivalent of using a library to write a thesis. That only requires to get familiar with the terminology of the domain, know where the best works are and how to use indexes and content tables.

kamaal 2y ago

>>Sure you can find misleading or outdated blogposts or forum discussions with a google search but the information is far more grounded in correctness then anything from an LLM. This was the case only 2 - 3 months back. But the assistants all moved to GPT-4/Sonnet and the newer versions are just a whole lot better and accurate. That's the whole idea behind AI, when you do find something is wrong, the error function kicks in and the weights are tweaked to more correct values. When GPT-5 comes along it will be another whole level accurate. In fact its already close to 90% accurate for most tasks with GPT-5 you can say that number could go to 95% or so. Which is actually fairly good enough for nearly all the production work you could do. Of course in coming years, Im guessing coding without AI assistance will be somewhat similar to writing code on paper or something like that. You can still do it for fun, but you won't be any where productive at a job.

acedTrex 2y ago
I use gpt4o and sonnet regularly. They are so often wrong. Just yesterday gpt4o spit out consistently incorrect tree sitter queries and refused to accept it was wrong. Its all so pointless and slowed me down compared to just reading the documentation.