171–180 of 504 posts
It hit me that in a few years, this may not be available as Docker and other tool suppliers start paying for advertising. We’ll see.
Unfortunately, it doesn't, and so I can't verify them. Not sure if it's an actual limitation of current LLM or rather they're intentionally filtering out the sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps a more common question: "How many calories do men need to lose weight?" Google AI responded: "To lose weight, men typically need to reduce their daily calorie intake by 1,500 - 1,800 calories" Which is obviously dangerous advice. IMO Google AI overviews should not show up for anything (a) medical or (b) numerical. LLMs just aren't safe enough yet.
> Which is obviously dangerous advice. Same advice as my trainer gives me.
[0] Note that the robot suggested to reduce calorie intake by 1,500->1,800 calories, and the recommended calorie intake is 2,000.
I remember when the more tech savvy folks were migrating from Altavista and Yahoo to Google because they understood it is better sooner than others. The same thing is happening. I consider myself tech savvy (still!) and I have to admit that I rarely use Google for all sort of information. As a side note: I am using Safari and I noticed that Apple's search is also replacing my Google searches. In the past if I knew na…
Of course the savvy are using LLMs now, but they’re also reckoning with two things: * you have to check an LLM result, especially if it cites something (because it may or may not exist) * you can’t cite an LLM result It’s a useful tool, but it lacks certain utility features that a useful web + effective search has. Or had.
You think that you don't have the check the link at the top of the page from a google search?
In fact, last I checked, for every google search I do, I have literally hit the page down key before starting to read.
> * you can’t cite an LLM result
And you think you can cite the top search result from a google search?
> Enter 2024 with AI. The top 20% of search results are a wall of text from AI... I'll be the contrarian here and say I actually like Google's AI Overview? For the first time in a long time, I can search for an answer to a question and, instead of getting annoying ads and SEO-optimized uselessness, I actually get an answer. Google is finally useful again. That said, once Google screws with this and starts making sear…
It's wrong enough and unsourced enough that it's more cognitive load to vet the result than not having it. Google is barely more useful because of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps a more common question: "How many calories do men need to lose weight?" Google AI responded: "To lose weight, men typically need to reduce their daily calorie intake by 1,500 - 1,800 calories" Which is obviously dangerous advice. IMO Google AI overviews should not show up for anything (a) medical or (b) numerical. LLMs just aren't safe enough yet.
I don't see the problem with the answer, and the question is already garbage. Plus, the LLM hedges its advice with precautions. I get a pretty good summary when I paste the question into Google. It comes up with a ballpark but also gives precautions and info on how to estimate what caloric restriction makes sense for you within the first 3 sentences. And all in a format someone is likely to read instead of clicking o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get very wrong and dangerous answers from AI frequently. I just searched "what's the ld50 of caffeine" and it says: > 367.7 mg/kg bw This is the ld50 of rats from this paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27461039/ This is higher than the ld50 estimated for humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeinism > The LD50 of caffeine in humans is dependent on individual sensitivity, but is estimated to be 150–200 milli…
Perhaps a more common question: "How many calories do men need to lose weight?" Google AI responded: "To lose weight, men typically need to reduce their daily calorie intake by 1,500 - 1,800 calories" Which is obviously dangerous advice. IMO Google AI overviews should not show up for anything (a) medical or (b) numerical. LLMs just aren't safe enough yet.
> Enter 2024 with AI. The top 20% of search results are a wall of text from AI... I'll be the contrarian here and say I actually like Google's AI Overview? For the first time in a long time, I can search for an answer to a question and, instead of getting annoying ads and SEO-optimized uselessness, I actually get an answer. Google is finally useful again. That said, once Google screws with this and starts making sear…
I totally agree, I really appreciate them. Half the time they give me the answer straight away. And when they're not helpful, it's no different from the first search result not being helpful and going to the second. Plus, they do a pretty good job of only showing them for the types of searches where they're appropriate. Are the right 100% of the time? Of course not. But snippets weren't right 100% of the time, and no…
They're just a summary, so any information is in the results or hallucinated.
If the AI could accurately point to the correct information, they would just order the results as such, but instead it's just a paragraph of spaghetti on a wall to look cutting edge.
> Enter 2024 with AI. The top 20% of search results are a wall of text from AI... I'll be the contrarian here and say I actually like Google's AI Overview? For the first time in a long time, I can search for an answer to a question and, instead of getting annoying ads and SEO-optimized uselessness, I actually get an answer. Google is finally useful again. That said, once Google screws with this and starts making sear…
Back when they only tried to help you find something, they were good at that. Really good. Then the ads and meta-slop came in and you couldn't find things anymore.
Then they decided they also wanted to answer questions, which is hard enough (they're often wrong). So they have to focus harder on answering questions.
And since they're trying to do both in one page/place, the question-answering has taken center stage, and finding things is now next to impossible.
So they're no longer a search engine. They're a crap version of OpenAI.
I wouldn't be concerned about trusting the results of ChatGPT if it also were providing links to the sources it had cited or used as a reference in its answers. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and so I can't verify them. Not sure if it's an actual limitation of current LLM or rather they're intentionally filtering out the sources.