Why ask a LLM when I got a janitor at my local public library that has all the answers.
I’m increasingly seeing this used as a disclaimer, as in, “don’t trust what I’m about to say; I went with the source that’s 90% useless because when I Googled it the search results were 100% useless”.
LLM promoting skills are becoming the new google research skills. My nursing school taught me how to google and look for the CDC page or the drug monograph or the manufacturers YouTube account. Now we’re having to learn to ask the llm to fuzzy match the most likely relevant sources and follow the links to fact check from there. Wasteful sure but we’re losing google as fast as it came in.
“Google says”
That’s much better
Not really anymore since there’s so much AI slop at the top of the results.
I work in municipal development, and we have people trying to turn in building plans designed by AI. And the AI even puts in real-looking Engineering and Architectural seals. I really don’t love that I have to verify seals these days.
Our team is made up of hyper-vigilant bureaucrats, but lots of cites have worn out people who stopped caring if it looked mostly right, and people are going to die when buildings start collapsing.
Is there a punishment for this? I’d think submitting ai documents is very fraudulent.
New build housing has been crap for a while now. You always better off getting something built in the 1920s back when people put in some effort. These days you’re lucky if the roof is fully attached.
AI is not trustworthy. A friend of mine literally put Warhammer 40,000’s rules and codexes into an AI so we could ask it questions and use it as a fast check rules tool.
It gets shit wrong a bunch.
So if the fucking thing can’t do a simple data-check on a 60 page document regarding a fucking boardgame, how the hell is it supposed to do ‘real’ things?
I don’t trust Ai, I still use judgements on what it gives and I skim a lot with tables and stuff because it’s stuff I already know or it only scratches the surface.
I like engaging with it and it helps me self reflect on what I already know but it gets thrown into logic loops and repeats itself and misunderstands unless you clarify.
I attempted to go with a bike tire layout that balances performance and speed it set for me. So I purchased the tires, took it the shop I usually go to and the guy called me and asked me to come in to show me what he meant (because I’m a visual learner sometimes). Dude goes the tire is too big and I’d have to remove the use of the 8th and 9th gear and I said it’s whatever and asked him to put the old tire back.
I felt so fuckin’ embarrassed I didn’t mention chatgpt but that was the day I decided to 100% double check what it says to me and to use better judgement.
I’ve started encountering the occasional “I had ChatGPT summarize the issue for us” (Almost invariably three pages of nothing that could remotely be considered a summary) at work, and my reflex has been to nope the fuck out and move on to a different ticket. No faster way to move yourself to the bottom of my queue. Have fun getting ChatGPT to fix it. I want to work with humans, not their weird little emotional support sock puppets.
A sock puppet would be more helpful because at least talking with one will help you reason through your problems.
You claim there is no more infuriating sentence, and yet I put this to you:
“I asked grok”
According to grokipedia
For some reason, the Nazis who use Grok bother me less than clueless normies who genuinely think AI is trustworthy. The Nazis would never contribute anything of value, so them getting brainrot from an LLM isn’t an issue.
When I tell someone in leadership that something’s a stupid fucking idea and they say they had a long conversation with a bot about it therefore my objection is irrelevant.
@grok please explain
What I tend to do, rather than copying the output I just check out the sources it used and then I link those when I’m arguing a point.
Except that LLMs often cite completely irrelevant crap or make up citations.
Try asking it for a list of sources on both ends of the spectrum and read both types instead of sources it used to create the most likeable output tailored to your experience
That sentence is a self-issued Certificate Of Stupidity.
High up people at my job think this is acceptable behavior to vomit text at people with this.
I hate it….
Eh.
It’s in the same ballpark as “my buddy said this while we were high” or “my uncle posted this on Facebook” or “I saw this YouTube video…”
It turns out people, on average, have horrible information hygiene and little incentive to consider this. ChatGPT just made Facebook Uncle Facts more personalized and accessible, unfortunately.
No, because “my uncle” didn’t post a 6 paragraph essay that no one has ever read, but you are now expected to read.
Your uncle has, if he’s been linking SEO chum. That’s kinda where LLMs got it from.
People on Lemmy also have horrid information hygiene that’s just as bad even though a lot of people here like to pretend that they’re better than everyone.
Agreed, 100%.
What’s worse, few seem to care when a made-up post is pointed out.
“I googled”
Anything that isn’t on the first page of google might as well be lost to time.
At least your are sifting through different results and picked something through your own when “you googled”, it actually included a hint of what you were thinking as you click through links looking for what you are trying to find.
I’m sifting through the results given to me by automat, not that different from AI.
I either ask uncle google’s AI, or I ask sources he used for the same lie.
If you can’t do proper research and you’d rather handicap your own ability to, that’s on you. There’s a fundamental difference between LLMs feeding people an answer, and a traditional Google search.
One is a definitive “this is the answer” and the other is a list of results YOU are meant to sift through. Not understanding that is on you.
Reading multiple sources will ALWAYS be better than a crap LLM summary.
I will quote you when someone claims that asking multiple LLMs is not the solution.
The most infuriating part is that they think this will actually convince you
Being accused of using ChatGPT for the crime of knowing how to properly use em dashes is far more infuriating.
I’m glad my go-to is semicolons. I hope that lasts
Shit, sometimes MS Word will autocorrect them in, and then I have to remove them just so it doesn’t look like AI.
But also people using the “This is AI” hand wave for things they don’t like. My sister in law is super guilty of this. I was showing my daughter some old-ass internet cartoons and my SIL was like “Ew you’re showing your daughter this AI slop?” and I’m like “This is a YouTube video of a flash cartoon from like 15+ years ago” and she’ll come back with “No, look at the animation, it’s all weird, it’s definitely AI” and it’s like “Yo… AI did not exist when this was made. It’s a jank ass flash video ported over to YouTube, that’s why it looks weird”
If you’re going to hate AI, at least be able to detect it.
I agree. People are so much worse at spotting AI than they think they are.
You left off the “-- and here’s why” at the end of your post. =P
Excellent observation; you are entirely correct — and here’s why:
