453
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] gratux@lemmy.blahaj.zone 141 points 1 week ago

Meanwhile Google search results:

  • AI summary
  • 2x "sponsored" result
  • AI copy of Stackoverflow
  • AI copy of Geeks4Geeks
  • Geeks4Geeks (with AI article)
  • the thing you actually searched for
  • AI copy of AI copy of stackoverflow
[-] rescue_toaster@lemm.ee 70 points 1 week ago

Should we put bets on how long until chatgpt responds to anything with:

Great question, before i give you a response, let me show you this great video for a new product you'll definitely want to check out!

[-] sleen@lemmy.zip 30 points 1 week ago

"Great question, before i give you a response, let me introduce you to raid shadow legends!"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 29 points 1 week ago

Google search is literally fucking dogshit and the worst it has EVER been. I'm starting to think fucking duckduckgo (relies on Bing) gives better results at this point.

[-] Aielman15@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

I have been using Duck for a few years now and I honestly prefer it to Google at this point. I'll sometimes switch to Google if I don't find anything on Duck, but that happens once every three or four months, if that.

[-] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

I only go to the googs for maps.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] teft@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Same here. I only switch to google to search for images for memes. For some reason bing has a harder time finding random star trek scenes.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

I'm in sciences and the AI overview gives wrong answers ALL THE TIME. If students or god forbid professionals rely on it thats bad news.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Isn't it funny that a lot of people were worried that wikipedia would be unreliable because anyone could edit it, then turned out pretty reliable, but AI is being pushed hard despite being even more unreliable than the worst speculation about wikipedia?

Being for profit excuses being shitty I guess.

[-] FeelzGoodMan420@eviltoast.org 4 points 1 week ago

AI is so fucking cap. There is no way to know if the information is accurate. It's completely unreliable.

[-] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

We have new feature, use it!

No, its broken and stupid, I prefer old feature.

... Fine!

breaks old feature even harder

[-] NielsBohron@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

yeah, but at least we can vet that shit better that the unsourced and hallucinated drivel provided by ChatGPT

[-] PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

I’ve used Google since 2004. I stopped using it this year because as the parent comment points out, it’s all marketing and AI. I like Qwant but it’s not perfect but it functions like a previous version of Google.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] CluckN@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Even adding, “Reddit” after a search only brings up posts from 7 years ago.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FinishingDutch@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Ugh. Don’t get me started.

Most people don’t understand that the only thing it does is ‘put words together that usually go together’. It doesn’t know if something is right or wrong, just if it ‘sounds right’.

Now, if you throw in enough data, it’ll kinda sorta make sense with what it writes. But as soon as you try to verify the things it writes, it falls apart.

I once asked it to write a small article with a bit of history about my city and five interesting things to visit. In the history bit, it confused two people with similar names who lived 200 years apart. In the ‘things to visit’, it listed two museums by name that are hundreds of miles away. It invented another museum that does not exist. It also happily tells you to visit our Olympic stadium. While we do have a stadium, I can assure you we never hosted the Olympics. I’d remember that, as i’m older than said stadium.

The scary bit is: what it wrote was lovely. If you read it, you’d want to visit for sure. You’d have no clue that it was wholly wrong, because it sounds so confident.

AI has its uses. I’ve used it to rewrite a text that I already had and it does fine with tasks like that. Because you give it the correct info to work with.

Use the tool appropriately and it’s handy. Use it inappropriately and it’s a fucking menace to society.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

I gave it a math problem to illustrate this and it got it wrong

If it can’t do that imagine adding nuance

[-] kopasz7@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

Well, math is not really a language problem, so it's understandable LLMs struggle with it more.

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

But it means it’s not “thinking” as the public perceives ai

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 32 points 1 week ago

Did you chatgpt this title?

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 7 points 1 week ago

"Infinitively" sounds like it could be a music album for a techno band.

[-] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The infinitive is the form of a verb that in English is said “to [x]”

For example, “to run” is the infinitive form of “run.”

OP probably meant “infinitely” worse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago

"Did you ChatGPT it?"

I wondered what language this would be an unintended insult in.

Then I chuckled when I ironically realized, it's offensive in English, lmao.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

GPTs natural language processing is extremely helpful for simple questions that have historically been difficult to Google because they aren't a concise concept.

The type of thing that is easy to ask but hard to create a search query for like tip of my tongue questions.

[-] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 week ago

Google used to be amazing at this. You could literally search "who dat guy dat paint dem melty clocks" and get the right answer immediately.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] leisesprecher@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago

The type of question where you don't even know what you don't know.

[-] ch00f@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

Last night, we tried to use chatGPT to identify a book that my wife remembers from her childhood.

It didn’t find the book, but instead gave us a title for a theoretical book that could be written that would match her description.

At least it said if it exists, instead of telling you when it was written (hallucinating)

[-] ch00f@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

Maybe it’s trying to motivate me to become a writer.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] tacosplease@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

And then google to confirm the gpt answer isn't total nonsense

[-] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago

I've had people tell me "Of course, I'll verify the info if it's important", which implies that if the question isn't important, they'll just accept whatever ChatGPT gives them. They don't care whether the answer is correct or not; they just want an answer.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Both suck now.

I have to say, look it up online and verify your sources.

[-] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 week ago

I say, "Just search it." Not interested in being free advertising for Google.

[-] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

just call it cgpt for short

Computer Generated Partial Truths

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Sadly, partial truths are an improvement over some sources these days.

[-] ddplf@szmer.info 4 points 1 week ago

Which is still better than "elementary truths that will quickly turn into shit I make up without warning", which is where ChatGPT is and will forever be stuck at.

[-] NickwithaC@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

This is entirely Google's fault.

[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 week ago

Google intentionally made search worse, but even if they want to make it better again, there's very little they can do. The web itself is extremely low signal:noise, and it's almost impossible to write an algorithm that lets the signal shine through (while also giving any search results back)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago

How long until ChatGPT starts responding "It's been generally agreed that the answer to your question is to just ask ChatGPT"?

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

I'm somewhat surprised that ChatGPT has never replied with "just Google it, bruh!" considering how often that answer appears in its data set.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Have they? Don't think I've heard that once and I work with people who use chat gpt themselves

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Creddit@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

This is a story that's been rotating through the media since ChatGPT first released.

I have an unpopular opinion about this headline after seeing the media cycle repeatedly downplay/ignore what Alphabet has been doing in response to OpenAI: Google the search engine is not in direct competition with ChatGPT, but Gemini is, and Alphabet is smart to keep simpler/time-tested search functionality central to Google rather than react strongly and scrap the keyword-based search bar that users understand are comfortable using - especially older users, but I think most people are starting to discover they have a use for both search and LLM chats.

I think there are two product categories here, which first looked like they were going to converge in 2022-2024, but which are now slowly changing course as customers start to comprehend how both are necessary for different purposes.

When I make chats in ChatGPT or Gemini or Claude etc, I am starting to plan them longitudinally so that I can use them over and over for a specific project or query type.

When I turn to a search bar, it's because I really want a proxy for a specific website or between me and whatever weird site has the answer to my specific question. It's not that I want discussion and a chat about it, I just want Google's card-like results with a website index I can read instead of that website's stylized, animated web design on top or popups or malware.

Every time I get sucked into a chat with Bing CoPilot(ChatGPT) when I really only had a web search query, I regret wasting my time talking to the LLM. Almost as a reflex, I've started avoiding it for most things now.

[-] cmder@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Just duck it bro. (Add !chat to your query or use ai assistant in results)

[-] Artyom@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

Reject proprietary LLMs, tell people to "just llama it"

[-] Evotech@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Might as well. All the sites are just AI articles anyway

[-] DarkRedman@framapiaf.org 3 points 1 week ago

@RmDebArc_5 I'm all about "DuckDuckGo this !" 🦆

[-] Madrigal@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Google isn’t a search engine any more. It stopped being that some years ago.

Now it’s more accurately described as a shitty content feed that can be weakly filtered using key words.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2024
453 points (93.1% liked)

memes

10557 readers
1793 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS