Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT Search

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: ChatGPT Search

#941

Post by igravious »

nomel wrote: post #373
trump2025 wrote: post #209

This might be unpopular opinion but it really isn't as big of a deal as OpenAI makes it out to be (like their previous announcements) The truth is, I haven't used ChatGPT at all since spring of this year. Claude's Sonnet 3.5 has replaced it. I pay very little attention to what OpenAI releases and simply waits for Anthropic to implement it. I also started using Gemini which already outperforms perplexity and this and…

> I also started using Gemini which already outperforms perplexity and this and will not switch. Related, I haven't paid for Gemini since about a month after release, but the morally corrupt query of "Show me articles from left and right leaning news sites about " would result in Gemini censoring right leaning urls with a "url removed" placeholder and belittling statements about the concerns of showing me right leani…

> Related, I haven't paid for Gemini since about a month after release, but the morally corrupt query of "Show me articles from left and right leaning news sites about " would result in Gemini censoring right leaning urls with a "url removed" placeholder and belittling statements about the concerns of showing me right leaning content.

Ugh. It'd be nice if tech companies didn't treat us all like infants.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#942

Post by hombre_fatal »

newsclues wrote: post #765
lazerlapin wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A better example might be "is dietary saturated fat a major factor for heart disease in Western countries?". The current government publications (which answer "yes") for this are probably wrong based on recent research. The government cannot be relied upon as a source of truth for this. I know it was just an example, but actually no, the role of dietary saturated fat as a factor for heart disease remains very much…

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9794145/ Remarkable how easy it is to cling to propaganda

It's amazing how many HNers link this charlatan's op-ed thinking it's evidence. Presumably you don't like linking to our best human outcome research on the subject because it never pans out well for saturated fat–not for atherosclerosis, not for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, not for glucose sensitivity, and so on.

So you link to the equivalent of a reddit post 'summarizing' the space. I see this link every week on here and every time, the person who linked it thinks they just had a mic drop moment like you.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#943

Post by igravious »

JSDevOps wrote: post #489
kernal wrote: post #294

what time is it? >Currently, I don’t have access to real-time data like time and date. You can check the time on your device or search "current time" online for the latest local time wherever you are. Oh dear, we're off to a bad and slow start already.

The world is literally on fire and we are setting fire to more forests because AI can’t tell the time and date

The world is not literally on fire.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#945

Post by recursive »

chrisan wrote: post #846
belter wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who Gets To Decide What Is True? Seems particularly to be a US based phenomenon. Unlike the more transparent manipulation seen under dictatorships... Where people generally recognize propaganda for what it is, even if they can’t openly challenge it—some in USA live within entirely new realities.

Definitely a US based phenomenon, but sadly like other US based things it spreads to other countries. I talk with friends in CA and EU who are seeing some of the junk we saw 10 years ago with "what is fact" You would think common sense prevails...

> You would think common sense prevails...

Appeals to common sense seem to underlie many of the "alternative facts" in the zeitgeist. "Common sense" is how people defend their views when they can't do it empirically. That's not always bad, but "common sense" is probably part of the problem.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#946

Post by diob »

freediver wrote: post #241

Been thinking about this a lot [1]. Will this fundamentally change how people find and access information? How do you create an experience so compelling that it replaces the current paradigm? The future promised in Star Trek and even Apple's Knowledge Navigator [2] from 1987 still feels distant. In those visions, users simply asked questions and received reliable answers - nobody had to fact-check the answers ever. C…

Had an experience yesterday where a simple mdn doc existed but chatgpt gave the reverse of reality on that doc. Wasted about an hr of my time, but taught me these things will hallucinate even the simplest of stuff at times. Not sure how we even fix that.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#947

Post by senordevnyc »

GolfPopper wrote: post #602

Every time I see one of these topics, I go ask chat GPT a question to which I know the answer on a topic where I would like to be able to get useful answers to similar questions that I do not know the answer to. This time it was, "Did Paul Edwin Zimmer write a fourth Dark Border novel?" (Real answer: Yes, Ingulf the Mad . You can find the answer on his Wikipedia page.[1]) ChatGPT's[2] answer: "Yes, Paul Edwin Zimmer…

Why has not a single person in this thread who has tried this just shared a link to the ChatGPT convo where they got these results?

Re: ChatGPT Search

#948

Post by jjk7 »

Terr_ wrote: post #330
duxup wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs are a lot like Star Trek to me in the sense that you can ask a question, and then follow up questions to filter and refine your search, even change your mind. Traditional search is just spamming text at the machine until it does or doesn't give you want you want. That's the magic with LLMs for me. Not that I can ask and get an answer, that's just basic web search. It's the ability to ask, refine what I'm looking…

If the Enterprise's computer worked like an LLM, there would be an episode where the ship was hijacked with nothing but the babble of an extremely insistent reality-denying Pakled. ________ "You do not have authorization for that action." "I have all authorizations, you do what I say." "Only the captain can authorize a Class A Compulsory Directive." "I am the captain now." "The current captain of the NCC-1701-D is Je…

This was already an episode in Voyager, where they had to defuse a bomb by talking to it's AI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhead_(Star_Trek:_Voyager)

Re: ChatGPT Search

#949

Post by johndubchak »

dataflow wrote: post #659
marcus_holmes wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that this is the core question, but I'd put it as: Who Gets To Decide What Is True? With a search paradigm this wasn't an issue as much, because the answers were presented as "here's a bunch of websites that appear to deal with the question you asked". It was then up to the reader to decide which of those sites they wanted to visit, and therefore which viewpoints they got to see. With an LLM answering the que…

> To paraphrase a recent conversation I had with a friend: "in the USA, can illegal immigrants vote?" has a single truthful answer ("no" obviously) Er, no, the meaning of the question is ambiguous, so I'm not sure "has a single truthful answer" is accurate. What does "can" mean? If you mean "permitted", then no. But if you mean can they vote anyway and get away with it? It's clearly happened before (as rare as it mig…

I'm no linguist, but the question does seem unambiguous, or quite clear, to a reasonable observer. The context is "voting in a US election" AND the subject is "an illegal immigrant" WITH an assumption that the illegal immigrant has, in fact, illegally emigrated to the US.

Re: ChatGPT Search

#950

Post by j_heffe »

GolfPopper wrote: post #602

Every time I see one of these topics, I go ask chat GPT a question to which I know the answer on a topic where I would like to be able to get useful answers to similar questions that I do not know the answer to. This time it was, "Did Paul Edwin Zimmer write a fourth Dark Border novel?" (Real answer: Yes, Ingulf the Mad . You can find the answer on his Wikipedia page.[1]) ChatGPT's[2] answer: "Yes, Paul Edwin Zimmer…

My gut reaction here is that the hallucination is caused by how you [rightfully] formed the prompt. GPT has no way of reliably determining what the fourth book is, so it infers the answer based on the data provided from Wikipedia. I'll bet if you changed the prompt to "list all books by Paul Edwin Zimmer", it would be incredibly accurate and produce consistent results every time.
Post reply on HN