• ShinkanTrain
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    290
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Ok.

    > uses search engine

    > search engine gives generative AI answer

    God dammit

    > scroll down

    > click search result

    > AI Generated article

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      77
      ·
      7 days ago

      > search engine gives generative AI answer

      > It cites it source, so can’t be that bad right?

      > click link to source

      > It’s an AI generated article

      Oh no.

      • RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        6 days ago

        AI will give the correct, real source and then still make shit up. Bing linked to bulbapedia to tell me wailord was the heaviest Pokemon. Bulbapedia knows it isn’t close, bingpt doesn’t know shit.

        • Matriks404@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 days ago

          It’s funny because I’ve also used LLM for getting useful info about pokemon, and it didn’t make any sense.

          • RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 days ago

            I gave up immediately, friend tried one for old school Runescape and it said a rune pickaxe was available at any charter trader. It is in fact available at 0 of them. I’ve literally never had it be accurate

            • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              ?? https://oldschool.runescape.wiki/w/Rune_pickaxe

              Prompt: Where can I buy a rune pickaxe in osrs

              Answer: In Old School RuneScape (OSRS), you can purchase a rune pickaxe from several locations:

              1. Nurmof’s Pickaxe Shop: Located in the Dwarven Mine, this shop sells various pickaxes, including the rune pickaxe, for 32,000 coins.

              2. Yarsul’s Prodigious Pickaxes: Situated in the Mining Guild, Yarsul offers the rune pickaxe at the same price of 32,000 coins.

              3. Pickaxe-Is-Mine Shop: Found in the dwarven city of Keldagrim, this shop also stocks the rune pickaxe.

              Additionally, you can purchase a rune pickaxe from other players through the Grand Exchange or by trading directly. Keep in mind that prices may vary based on market demand.

              For a visual guide on where to buy pickaxes in OSRS, you might find this video helpful:

    • dance_ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 days ago

      The uncertainty has gripped the world in fear. I go to hug my wife for comfort. She is cakeGen AI.

    • moseschrute@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Don’t be ridiculous. It’s more like Google search result you click is an ad rather than an organic search result, and that ad… is an ad that’s ai generated… god damnit

    • Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Maybe go to more than 2 places for your information? I agree that this shit is also an issue with news and other media, but it’s not that hard to find more substantial information on things. At least not yet.

      And I can’t remember the exact process off hand, but there’s still a way to get search results without that garbage on google. I’ll edit if I can find it.


      *Found it. So, at least for Firefox, you can add a custom search engine through the settings. For the url, input https://www.google.com/search?q=%25s&udm=14 and then set it as your default se if you want. As far as I can tell, it’s a simplified version of the main search, just without the “helpful” add-ons. Hope it helps some people.

      **For some reason Lemmy is adding a ‘25’ between the % and s. Those numbers shouldn’t be there, just fyi.

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        **For some reason Lemmy is adding a ‘25’ between the % and s. Those numbers shouldn’t be there, just fyi.

        The URL as shown is actually valid. No worries there.

        The value 25 happens to be hexidecimal for a percent sign. The percent symbol is reserved in URLs for encoding special characters (e.g. %20 is a space), so a bare percent sign must be represented by %25. Lemmy must be parsing your URL and normalizing it for the rest of us.

    • M137@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Ok.

      > uses search engine

      > search engine gives generative AI answer

      > stops using that search engine

      That’s all you have to do, it’s not hard. I’m absolutely certain that people really want to have things that annoy them and makes them feel bad just so they can complain and get attention from that complaining. This is the same as people complaining about ads online and then doing nothing to fix that, it’s the same with many things.

  • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    The Internet was a great resource for sharing and pooling human knowledge.

    Now generative AI has come along to dilute knowledge in a great sea of excrement. Humans have to hunt through the shit to find knowledge.

    • criss_cross@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      I mean google was already like this before GenAI.

      Its a nightmare to find anything you’re actually looking for and not SEO spam.

      Gen AI cuts out some of that noise but it has its own problems too.

      • JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        You should see what searching was like on AltaVista. You’d have to scroll past dozens of posts of random numbers and letters to find anything legible. Click through and your computer would emit a cacophony of bell sounds and pour out screens of random nonsense and then freeze permanently. You had to rely on links and web-rings to navigate with any degree of success.

        And that in itself was a massive improvement on what was available before.

        • criss_cross@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Oh yeah I remember the AltaVista, Lycos, Ask Jeeves, and Dogpile days. I agree searxh has come a long way. I’m just saying Google used to be better in that old sweet spot.

    • Chulk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      Sometimes I wonder if it’s by design.

    • Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      The Internet was a great resource for sharing and pooling human knowledge.

      Bruh did you ever went to 4chan or Reddit? The Internet turned to a dumpster fire long time before AI.

        • Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          It’s still part of the Internet, if you can just pick and choose what Parts we are talking about, then the Internet ist still fine 🥸

          • Nalivai@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            But now all of the internet got incorporated into a magic 8-ball and when it gives you it’s random bullshit, you don’t know is it quoting anon from 4chan or a scientific paper or a journal or random assortment of words. And you don’t have any way to check it in confines of the system

  • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    “How to make a pie”

    Here’s how to make a pie:

    Gather ingredients:

    • Flour
    • Eggs
    • Water
    • 10 pounds of dog shit
    • 10 gallons of cat urine

    Cooking Process:

    • Step 1: Mix all ingredients and place in a pan
    • Step 2: Add Gasoline
    • Step 3: Bake at 9000° Celsius for 12 hours
    • Step 4: ???
    • Step 5: Profit?
      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Yeah, you’d spend more time filtering out nonsense than you would save vs actually implementing some decent logic.

        Maybe use AI trained from a better source to help filter the nonsense from Reddit, and then have a human sample the output. Maybe then you’d get some okay training data, but that’s a bit of putting the cart before the horse.

    • Olap@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Don’t forget to glue it all together at the end. Real chefs use epoxy

  • Kaelygon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Google search results are often completely unrelated so it’s not any better. If the thing I’m looking for is obscure, AI often finds some thread that I can follow, but I always double check that information.
    Know your tool limits, after hundreds of prompts I’ve learned pretty well when the AI is spitting bullshit answers. Real people on the internet can be just as wrong and biased, so it’s best to find multiple independent sources

  • Irdial@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    In general I agree with the sentiment of the article, but I think the broader issue is media literacy. When the Internet came about, people had similar reservations about the quality of information, and most of us learned in school how to find quality information online.

    LLMs are a tool, and people need to learn how to use them correctly and responsibly. I’ve been using Perplexity.AI as a search engine for a while now, and I think they’re taking the right approach. It employs LLMs at different stages to parse your query, perform web searches on your behalf, and summarize findings. It provides in-text citations as well, which is an opportunity for a media-literate person to confirm the validity of anything important.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 days ago

      Ok but may I point you to the reality that internet spread misinformation is a critically bad problem at the moment

      • RDSM@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        And your argument is that a human will be better than an AI going through that? Because it seems unrelated to the initial argument.

  • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    7 days ago

    Where was all this coming from? Well, I don’t know what Stern or Esquire’s source was. But I know Navarro-Cardenas’, because she had a follow-up message for critics: “Take it up with Chat GPT.”

    The absolute gall of this woman to blame her own negligence and incompetence on a tool she grossly misused.

    • Oka@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      I ask GPT for random junk all the time. If it’s important, I’ll double-check the results. I take any response with a grain of salt, though.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        So, if it isn’t important, you just want an answer, and you don’t care whether it’s correct or not?

        • bradd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 days ago

          I use LLMs before search especially when I’m exploring all possibilities, it usually gives me some good leads.

          I somehow know when it’s going to be accurate or when it’s going to lie to me and I lean on tools for calculations, being time aware, and web search to help with the lies.

          • Nalivai@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            I somehow know when it’s going to be accurate

            Are you familiar with Dunning-Kruger?

            • bradd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days ago

              Sure but you can benchmark accuracy and LLMs are trained on different sets of data using different methods to improve accuracy. This isn’t something you can’t know, and I’m not claiming to know how, I’m saying that with exposure I have gained intuition, and as a result have learned to prompt better.

              Ask an LLM to write powershell vs python, it will be more accurate with python. I have learned this through exposure. I’ve used many many LLMs, most are tuned to code.

              Currently enjoying llama3.3:70b by the way, you should check it out if you haven’t.

        • 0oWow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          The same can be said about the search results. For search results, you have to use your brain to determine what is correct and what is not. Now imagine for a moment if you were to use those same brain cells to determine if the AI needs a check.

          AI is just another way to process the search results, that happens to give you the correct answer up front, most of the time. If you go blindly trust it, that’s on you.

            • 0oWow@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              If you knew what the sources were, you wouldn’t have needed to search in the first place. Just because it’s on a reputable website does not make it legit. You still have to reason.

      • Nalivai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        You are spending more time and effort doing that than you would googling old fashioned way. And if you don’t check, you might as well throwing magic 8-ball, less damage to the environment, same accuracy

        • Oka@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          The latest GPT does search the internet to generate a response, so it’s currently a middleman to a search engine.

          • Nalivai@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            No it doesn’t. It incorporates unknown number of words from the internet into a machine which only purpose is to sound like a human. It’s an insanely complicated machine, but the truthfulness of the response not only never considered, but also is impossible to take as a deaired result.
            And the fact that so many people aren’t equipped to recognise it behind the way it talks could be buffling, but also very consistent with other choices humanity takes regularly.

        • bradd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          When it’s important you can have an LLM query a search engine and read/summarize the top n results. It’s actually pretty good, it’ll give direct quotes, citations, etc.

          • Nalivai@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            And some of those citations and quotes will be completely false and randomly generated, but they will sound very believable, so you don’t know truth from random fiction until you check every single one of them. At which point you should ask yourself why did you add unneccessary step of burning small portion of the rainforest to ask random word generator for stuff, when you could not do that and look for sources directly, saving that much time and energy

            • PapstJL4U@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              I, too, get the feeling, that the RoI is not there with LLM. Being able to include “site:” or “ext:” are more efficient.

              I just made another test: Kaba, just googling kaba gets you a german wiki article, explaining it means KAkao + BAnana

              chatgpt: It is the combination of the first syllables of KAkao and BEutel - Beutel is bag in german.

              It just made up the important part. On top of chatgpt says Kaba is a famous product in many countries, I am sure it is not.

            • bradd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              As a side note, I feel like this take is intellectually lazy. A knife cannot be used or handled like a spoon because it’s not a spoon. That doesn’t mean the knife is bad, in fact knives are very good, but they do require more attention and care. LLMs are great at cutting through noise to get you closer to what is contextually relevant, but it’s not a search engine so, like with a knife, you have to be keenly aware of the sharp end when you use it.

            • bradd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              I guess it depends on your models and tool chain. I don’t have this issue but I have seen it for sure, in the past with smaller models no tools and legal code.

  • curiousaur@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Who else is going to aggregate those recipes for me without having to scroll past ads a personal blog bs?

    • bradd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      There was a project a few years back that scrapped and parsed, literally the entire internet, for recipes, and put them in an elasticsearch db. I made a bomb ass rub for a tri-tip and chimichurri with it that people still talk about today. IIRC I just searched all tri-tip rubs and did a tag cloud of most common ingredients and looked at ratios, so in a way it was the most generic or average rub.

      If I find the dataset I’ll update, I haven’t been able to find it yet but I’m sure I still have it somewhere.

      • curiousaur@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        That’s often what I ask chatgpt for. "For a béarnaise what’s the milk flour ratio? "

        I’m a capable chef, I want to get straight to the specifics.

    • Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      So I rarely splurge on an app but I did splurge on AntList on Android because they have a import recipe function. Also allows you to get paywall blocked recipes if you are fast enough.

        • Nalivai@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 days ago

          Thd fuck do you mean without telling? I am very explicitly telling you that I don’t use them, and I’m very openly telling you that you also shouldn’t

          • curiousaur@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            I use them hundreds of times daily. I’m 3-5x more productive thanks to them. I’m incorporating them into the products I’m building to help make others who use the platform more productive.

            Why the heck should I not use them? They are an excellent tool for so many tasks, and if you don’t stay on top of their use, in many fields you will fall irrecoverably behind.

  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    This is why Melon and the AI chud brigade are so obsessed with having a chatbot (sorry, “AI”) that always agrees with them: a stupid number of people think LLMs are search engines, or worse, search engines but better, some diviner of truth.

    • SkyNTP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 days ago

      Information is not truth. A do or die slogan for the 21st century.

  • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Eh…I got it to find a product that met the specs I was looking for on Amazon when no other search worked. It’s certainly a last resort but it worked. Idk why whenever I’m looking to buy anything lately somehow the only criteria I care about are never documented properly…

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      It’s useful to point you in the right direction, but anything beyond that necessitates more research

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 days ago

        I mean, it gave me exactly what I asked for. The only further research was to actually read the item description to verify that but I could have blindly accepted it and received what I was looking for.

      • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 days ago

        Yea. It was reading the contents of the item description I think. In this instance I was looking for an item with specific dimensions and just searching those didn’t work because Amazon sellers are ass at naming shit and it returned a load of crap. but when I put them in their AI thing it pulled several matches right away.

    • leanleft
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      searX still uses the same search engines.

      • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yes, however, using a public SearXNG instance makes your searches effectively private, since it’s the server doing them, not you. It also does not use generative AI to produce the results, and won’t until or unless the ability for normal searches is removed.

        And at that point, you can just disable that engine for searching.

        • leanleft
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          from a privacy perspective…
          you might as well use a vpn or tor. same thing.

          • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Yes, but that’s not the only benefit to it. It’s a metasearch engine, meaning it searches all the individual sites you ask for, and combines the results into one page. This makes it more akin to DDG, but it doesn’t just use one search provider.

            • leanleft
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              it’s a fantastic metasearch engine. but also people frequently dont configure it to its max potential IMO . one common mishap is the frequent default setting of sending queries to google. 💩