Post

Wikipedia tends to have a number of people at least trying to present information close to honestly, and thus in my book ranks higher than a number of sources. As long as you stay clear of politics, race, gender, sexual orientation, tech origins ... AI is just like an API with half the docs gone.

Wouldn't it be ironic if this collective hallucination of the internet, becomes a reality, due to to spotlight from the gullible Google LLM? (And to be fair to Google, with all the noise on "Encanto 2" it's tough enough for humans looking at searches to figure out, never mind LLM training sets.)

To be fair, this would've been an issue even without ai summaries. It's just that the summary makes it look more official.

I enjoy phind.com, which is an AI that cites its sources. I haven’t seen another like that yet, not that I’ve been looking.

It's already a common problem in r/Chemistry, r/Labrats, and r/Cartalk on Reddit. People have come in with questions saying, "ChatGPT said to do it this way but it didn't work and I ended up in coughing and my eyes burn. What went wrong?" Well, for starters, you used ChatGPT.

It's hard to blame the AI. It just really wants to dive deeper into the Encanto lore with a sequel.

This came up in a Scrabble argument. Two people around the table googled the word and just instantly said "yup it's a word"

Research SEEMS easy now but it's too easy to get it wrong. Need to fact check everything, fact check the fact checkers, check for original, peer reviewed, scrupulously researched publications, but a teensy tiny percent of us even understand how to tell flawless research from sloppy crap!

My boss and I were looking for alternatives to our usual sulfur-bearing material (dimethyldisilfide) for our pilot plant. I had a bunch dibutylsulfide and he used Google to find the wt% S in it while I just calculated it. Google's AI showed all the correct arithmetic steps but did the math wrong.