7 ms·

+1 I'd wager you get similar results if you gave people a version of Google search that purposely gave you bad results. Like, it's framed as an assistant / loo

by vanuatu 3mo ago

+1 I'd wager you get similar results if you gave people a version of Google search that purposely gave you bad results. Like, it's framed as an assistant / lookup tool - is it so surprising that people tend to trust it more? Especially since the participants are likely used to using full-powered models and the researchers give them a purposely gimped one (lol) People are acting rationally when given AI tools to lookup information, their first consumer use case was as a super-powered Google Search

wonnage 3mo ago
Agree that the study design is flawed. Going with the possibly-hallucinated AI answer is rational as long as you know the hallucination rate isn't 100% (or whatever % you get after factoring in the monetary rewards they introduced later in the study) But in reality when google gives you the wrong answer, you at least have some signals you can use to infer confidence. For example, the number of results, whether the sources are trustworthy, etc. AI at best tucks that away in a footnote and discourages further critical thinking.
- habinero 3mo ago
  > Going with the possibly-hallucinated AI answer is rational as long as you know the hallucination rate isn't 100% I hadn't even considered people might evaluate knowledge that way. That's legit horrific lol. "What's the literal odds this info is wrong" vs "is this answer consistent with everything else I know, and if not, what other info would I need to change my mind"
  - s1artibartfast 3mo ago
    I think it is pretty standard for how people approach knowledge sources. What's the chance my doctor, colleague, plumber, or random Reddit thread Etc is wrong. Your alternative is also something that people do, but rarely consciously.
  - wonnage 3mo ago
    I mean the questions are on random movie trivia, the alternative is just guessing. I think you're overthinking it.
  - Dylan16807 3mo ago
    I don't understand what's horrifying you. Assume "is this consistent with everything I know" is yes here. Now what? And "what would it take to change my mind" is a picture of the film for most of these. Is there a problem there? There's very little chance these people are going to trust the AI over their eyes, they just don't want to bother hunting down pictures to use their eyes.
habinero 3mo ago
> is it so surprising that people tend to trust it more Yes and no. I think most people would agree that Wikipedia is, on the whole, a pretty great first resource on anything. It tries to be factual and accurate. Most people would also agree that Wikipedia can be wrong or manipulated and should never be used for an authoritative source. And then somehow a computer barfing up words distilled from magic internet concentrate is absolutely trustworthy? I don't get it.
- bluefirebrand 3mo ago
  Many middle aged people might also remember a time when every adult in the world was shouting "don't believe everything you read online" and schools wouldn't let you cite wikipedia as a primary source. That attitude seems to have gone away for some reason

by vanuatu 3mo ago

wonnage 3mo ago

Agree that the study design is flawed. Going with the possibly-hallucinated AI answer is rational as long as you know the hallucination rate isn't 100% (or whatever % you get after factoring in the monetary rewards they introduced later in the study) But in reality when google gives you the wrong answer, you at least have some signals you can use to infer confidence. For example, the number of results, whether the sources are trustworthy, etc. AI at best tucks that away in a footnote and discourages further critical thinking.

habinero 3mo ago
> Going with the possibly-hallucinated AI answer is rational as long as you know the hallucination rate isn't 100% I hadn't even considered people might evaluate knowledge that way. That's legit horrific lol. "What's the literal odds this info is wrong" vs "is this answer consistent with everything else I know, and if not, what other info would I need to change my mind"
- s1artibartfast 3mo ago
  I think it is pretty standard for how people approach knowledge sources. What's the chance my doctor, colleague, plumber, or random Reddit thread Etc is wrong. Your alternative is also something that people do, but rarely consciously.
- wonnage 3mo ago
  I mean the questions are on random movie trivia, the alternative is just guessing. I think you're overthinking it.
- Dylan16807 3mo ago
  I don't understand what's horrifying you. Assume "is this consistent with everything I know" is yes here. Now what? And "what would it take to change my mind" is a picture of the film for most of these. Is there a problem there? There's very little chance these people are going to trust the AI over their eyes, they just don't want to bother hunting down pictures to use their eyes.

habinero 3mo ago

> is it so surprising that people tend to trust it more Yes and no. I think most people would agree that Wikipedia is, on the whole, a pretty great first resource on anything. It tries to be factual and accurate. Most people would also agree that Wikipedia can be wrong or manipulated and should never be used for an authoritative source. And then somehow a computer barfing up words distilled from magic internet concentrate is absolutely trustworthy? I don't get it.

bluefirebrand 3mo ago
Many middle aged people might also remember a time when every adult in the world was shouting "don't believe everything you read online" and schools wouldn't let you cite wikipedia as a primary source. That attitude seems to have gone away for some reason