I'm very much with you but how would you look this up? Especially without going down a rabbithole about the kangaroo digestive system and if you don't know anyone who fights kangaroos.
Edit: I am, in fact, not advocating for AI but genuinely asking.
Now, and this is apparently the hard part. Look at the results. NO don't look at the AI bit on top, KEEP SCROLLING, there is more stuff down there. Look until you see a thing that appears to be a not bullshit source.
Click on that result.
Read it.
Congratulations. You learned something that is probably true.
Now, glancing over DuckDuckGo results tells me that kangaroos do fart and there's no mention of that being unusual in any way. So now what do I do? I come back here and ask the person who claimed they don't fart to please elaborate and why they claim that. What was gained in this exercise?
Why does you learning something require you to go and do all of that? You learned that OP is incorrect and you shared that with everyone here. Why are you adding steps? Is this genuinely a new concept for you?
Ecosia can use either Google or Bing under the hood, and is working on its own search index along with Quant.
But, honestly, "it uses X under the hood" is such a reductive take. If you never give alternative search engines a try, they'll never gain the userbase to actually build their own foundation.
Using Google (or Bing) itself means you're contributing to the problem.
KEEP SCROLLING, there is more stuff down there. Look until you see a thing that appears to be a not bullshit source.
Yeah, about that, sometimes there will be no not bullshit source or no relevant result at all even if bullshit. Depends on how complicated the question is, but search engines look to perform worse lately, too
Why wouldn't you want to go down that rabbithole? Would keep me busy for few hours al least. Much more better way to kill time instead of just doomscrolling.
Sorry, I don't trust language machines to ever know anything. It's not their fault, you just can't expect them to do what they aren't capable of. If you really wanna think AI is useful, recognize the areas where it objectively isn't useful.
In which case it doesn't need to give a summary in the first place. Too often people won't click on those sources over the ai blurb. It's designed to exploit laziness by making being misinformed easy. Seeing people just give AI blurbs without a source as evidence is annoyingly common.
That website was made by someone suffering from some cognitive dissonance. They correctly observe that LLMs "can produce convincing-sounding information, but that information may not be accurate or reliable" and then somehow immediately afterwards conclude that "summarize this for me" is the type of thing which LLMs "might" be "good at".
Unfortunately, I find that finding those sources by traditional search gets harder over time. Maybe the internet is now more garbage, maybe the search engines are more garbage, but a couple of times I failed to find a source on my own and used an LLM to find one (it may also fail, of course)
I think you are right that the problem is often just lazy people not wanting to understand or use the tool in a way that is beneficial to them. But there are some good use cases for it, when I am coding I will ask questions and my session instructions are to only provide relevant links to source documentation that can be helpful in my problem and also provide tutorial links that could be relevant, never provide code or advice. I would say 7/10 times it gets me to the correct spot in the docs and provides some useful tutorials on the subject. Not perfect but I am not using it and just blindly trusting its advice, just using it to be a slightly faster search engine that gets me to the information I am seeking without me having to dig into the docs or jump from site to site finding the information.
Sure. So long as you are conscientious about how you're using it, it can be useful. The problems arise when people think it's magic and ignore that it will always have a chance of being wrong.
For me that's still too much, because of the environmental aspect and because I just don't want to associate with or support these companies in any way
Too often people don't read past the headline or even have their algorithm trained to consistently give dis/misinformation. I don't see criticism of a tool, but rather how has developed and is used. This applies in so many areas that I think the more effective approach is teaching people how to think more critically and criticizing the companies for not doing their due diligence in promoting that. Otherwise it comes across like being upset people use social media, in which case I think we are far too beyond the Pandoras box being opened to spend time focusing on that aspect. If you have solutions other than telling people not to use it, I'm all ears.
Machine learning is a useful technology that can do amazing things. "AI" is the cultural phenomenon of people thinking we created a magical solution to every problem. Machine learning might be able to sometimes query a search engine better, but LLMs will never know anything about the world because that's not what it was designed for. Machine learning can make workers more productive, but we're nowhere near the point where it can be a laborer itself. People should lean how the technology actually works so they realize that half of the corporate implementations are a bad idea.
The problem for me is the AI curating and interpreting the results for you with every search.
If you're using a mainstream "AI powered" search engine these days, it will come to a conclusion on its own and then show you only results that corroborate it, rather than the other way around.
That was happening before AI, it's just that machine learning was harnessed to make it worse rather than better. Imagine if they used machine learning to combat SEO or recognize that it's not giving you what you want after the first page. Instead it's just a disinformation machine to maximize how easy it is to control the public.
they're basically a pair of pogo sticks with a kickstand.
Though interestingly we're such efficient runners for exactly the same reason: Our legs also rely on springy tendons. Proper running form is to not put much force on the heel, so the arch of the foot acts like a spring alongside the achilles tendon and some other bits.
... in this case, Roos are differently anatomically configured:
Yeah, the entirety of their hindquarters is essentially the ass / thigh muscles of a human, it is just oriented in a way that its not as visible/obvious to a human, looking to find human anatomy.
When you kick or hop, that doesn't use many muscles in your lower leg/ankle, at least in terms of where the raw force comes from, it comes from your upper legs, ass, thighs, core.
Maybe think of Chun Li, lol.
Kangaroos are well configured to be stable on their ... feet? ... with a different skeletal set up, so they really only need some tendons and less massive muscles in the lower legs.
They also have muscular and massive enough tails that they could concievably basically thwack you in the head and probably knock you out or topple you over, though I don't have any idea if they actually do that or not.
It would be funnier if she started saying something in the lines of furries shouldn't exist or that's something really bad, and it ended with "mom, I have news for you"
VeganPlant-basedNever fartsI declare bankruptcy!Mom's got a point.
If they could dance and sing they'd be Hugh Jackman
Hugh Jackedman
wait.. never farts?
do I really have to ask Ai or can you expand on that.
Do I really have to ask ai and then still go elsewhere to actually verify the information because LLMs are actually just full of shit?
If LLMs are full of shit, do they also fart?
Hey Siri, do that ass fart?
Wow! What great and insightful question. I'm glad you asked... Ppffffrrrtt
depends, it is a kangaroo LLM?
are parrots kangarooos
Kangaroos are Long Legged Mammals, so–
Nope, solid shit every single time.
You never have to ask AI. You can always go look it up in Wikipedia, use an encyclopedia, or talk to someone who fights kangaroos professionally.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say, never use AI for anything ever.
I'm very much with you but how would you look this up? Especially without going down a rabbithole about the kangaroo digestive system and if you don't know anyone who fights kangaroos.
Edit: I am, in fact, not advocating for AI but genuinely asking.
Google: "Do kangaroos fart?"
Now, and this is apparently the hard part. Look at the results. NO don't look at the AI bit on top, KEEP SCROLLING, there is more stuff down there. Look until you see a thing that appears to be a not bullshit source.
Click on that result.
Read it.
Congratulations. You learned something that is probably true.
I'd like to politely decline.
Now, glancing over DuckDuckGo results tells me that kangaroos do fart and there's no mention of that being unusual in any way. So now what do I do? I come back here and ask the person who claimed they don't fart to please elaborate and why they claim that. What was gained in this exercise?
Okay wise guy, what if an LLM told you the same thing? what would be gained then?
What if the comment your pointing at is wrong?
What if you didn't need to have your thinking done for you?
The very first thing I said was that I agree with not asking an AI, ever, for anything.
Why does you learning something require you to go and do all of that? You learned that OP is incorrect and you shared that with everyone here. Why are you adding steps? Is this genuinely a new concept for you?
Huh? There may be a reason why they said that and I might like to know?
DDG just uses Bing under the hood. Why do you prefer Microsoft over Google?
Because neither DDG nor Microsoft is tracking me when I use DDG.
Because it's not Google.
DDG lets you turn off the AI overview. That alone makes it miles better
Ecosia can use either Google or Bing under the hood, and is working on its own search index along with Quant.
But, honestly, "it uses X under the hood" is such a reductive take. If you never give alternative search engines a try, they'll never gain the userbase to actually build their own foundation.
Using Google (or Bing) itself means you're contributing to the problem.
Most people don't have this skill. And a lot of those web pages are going to be written by AI, too.
Search results being 80% ai generated is killing me internally smh 😣
https://tenbluelinks.org/
You just used ai in that request. Congratulations you jusy played yourself
Yeah, about that, sometimes there will be no not bullshit source or no relevant result at all even if bullshit. Depends on how complicated the question is, but search engines look to perform worse lately, too
This question is not complicated.
So Google good, Ai bad?
Is this an ad?
Are you stupid?
Why wouldn't you want to go down that rabbithole? Would keep me busy for few hours al least. Much more better way to kill time instead of just doomscrolling.
Because I already go down rabbitholes too much (TT_TT)
Sorry, I don't trust language machines to ever know anything. It's not their fault, you just can't expect them to do what they aren't capable of. If you really wanna think AI is useful, recognize the areas where it objectively isn't useful.
I really dont get this argument. You can ask it for live link sources to verify whatever info it generates, depending on the topic.
In which case it doesn't need to give a summary in the first place. Too often people won't click on those sources over the ai blurb. It's designed to exploit laziness by making being misinformed easy. Seeing people just give AI blurbs without a source as evidence is annoyingly common.
Maybe you like this Website:
https://stopcitingai.com/
😬
That website was made by someone suffering from some cognitive dissonance. They correctly observe that LLMs "can produce convincing-sounding information, but that information may not be accurate or reliable" and then somehow immediately afterwards conclude that "summarize this for me" is the type of thing which LLMs "might" be "good at".
Unfortunately, I find that finding those sources by traditional search gets harder over time. Maybe the internet is now more garbage, maybe the search engines are more garbage, but a couple of times I failed to find a source on my own and used an LLM to find one (it may also fail, of course)
I think you are right that the problem is often just lazy people not wanting to understand or use the tool in a way that is beneficial to them. But there are some good use cases for it, when I am coding I will ask questions and my session instructions are to only provide relevant links to source documentation that can be helpful in my problem and also provide tutorial links that could be relevant, never provide code or advice. I would say 7/10 times it gets me to the correct spot in the docs and provides some useful tutorials on the subject. Not perfect but I am not using it and just blindly trusting its advice, just using it to be a slightly faster search engine that gets me to the information I am seeking without me having to dig into the docs or jump from site to site finding the information.
Sure. So long as you are conscientious about how you're using it, it can be useful. The problems arise when people think it's magic and ignore that it will always have a chance of being wrong.
For me that's still too much, because of the environmental aspect and because I just don't want to associate with or support these companies in any way
Too often people don't read past the headline or even have their algorithm trained to consistently give dis/misinformation. I don't see criticism of a tool, but rather how has developed and is used. This applies in so many areas that I think the more effective approach is teaching people how to think more critically and criticizing the companies for not doing their due diligence in promoting that. Otherwise it comes across like being upset people use social media, in which case I think we are far too beyond the Pandoras box being opened to spend time focusing on that aspect. If you have solutions other than telling people not to use it, I'm all ears.
Machine learning is a useful technology that can do amazing things. "AI" is the cultural phenomenon of people thinking we created a magical solution to every problem. Machine learning might be able to sometimes query a search engine better, but LLMs will never know anything about the world because that's not what it was designed for. Machine learning can make workers more productive, but we're nowhere near the point where it can be a laborer itself. People should lean how the technology actually works so they realize that half of the corporate implementations are a bad idea.
This is how i know what idiots to block. Thank you.
💀
That’s just google with extra steps
Yep. I use that with the AI component sometimes
I have disappointing news for you: https://www.sciencenordic.com/agriculture-animals-climate/disappointed-scientists-damn-kangaroos-fart-methane/1371658
Legend has it there are these things called "search engines". People say they are doors to actual human knowledge
Were. Now they're doors to ai slop and advertisements...
We can still restrict the search to dates before 2023, in case we're not looking for more recent information, and be fully ai-free
The problem for me is the AI curating and interpreting the results for you with every search.
If you're using a mainstream "AI powered" search engine these days, it will come to a conclusion on its own and then show you only results that corroborate it, rather than the other way around.
That was happening before AI, it's just that machine learning was harnessed to make it worse rather than better. Imagine if they used machine learning to combat SEO or recognize that it's not giving you what you want after the first page. Instead it's just a disinformation machine to maximize how easy it is to control the public.
Just to give you 1 example
https://noai.duckduckgo.com/
I’ve never witnessed one farting. Have you?
💀
It's an animal. please stop y'all!
Find a Fursuiter instead.
wait, what's a fursuiter? do I have to ask yet another series of if statements to attain contextual awareness for these discussions or, like, what.
Obviously, one who wears a suit of fur.
One meant to look like those cartoon animals, except it has eerie dead eyes usually, and way too many colors.
don't let mom see this
She's seen it already
it's too late
she's seen everything
To paraphrase Josh Johnson:
They never left the prison colony tho.
This seems like a valid opinion
So turns out Mom is a furry.
Oh thank fuck i was running out of gift ideas.
I think there's a furry or a fursona hidden in everyone. It just takes some digging.
Like a sexy spirit animal?
Is there another kind? If it wants to be my spirit animal it better be horny.
...shit, that's a good point.
Yeah, and being a lesbian just means you haven't found the right man.
Has she seen Tank Girl, I wonder?
Stupid sexy Booga
Based honestly
Ripped Roger, casually crushing a metal bucket:
His taller son Monty:
https://www.muscleandfitness.com/athletes-celebrities/news/photos-these-jacked-kangaroos-are-more-ripped-you/
Yeah, kangaroos can absolutely be jacked, and they are notorious for kickboxing the fuck out of anything that annoys them.
For an animal who's known for the significant use of it's legs, why do kangaroos look like they always skip leg day
they're basically a pair of pogo sticks with a kickstand.
Though interestingly we're such efficient runners for exactly the same reason: Our legs also rely on springy tendons. Proper running form is to not put much force on the heel, so the arch of the foot acts like a spring alongside the achilles tendon and some other bits.
Their hips don't lie.
It's all in the way you move.
... in this case, Roos are differently anatomically configured:
Yeah, the entirety of their hindquarters is essentially the ass / thigh muscles of a human, it is just oriented in a way that its not as visible/obvious to a human, looking to find human anatomy.
When you kick or hop, that doesn't use many muscles in your lower leg/ankle, at least in terms of where the raw force comes from, it comes from your upper legs, ass, thighs, core.
Maybe think of Chun Li, lol.
Kangaroos are well configured to be stable on their ... feet? ... with a different skeletal set up, so they really only need some tendons and less massive muscles in the lower legs.
They also have muscular and massive enough tails that they could concievably basically thwack you in the head and probably knock you out or topple you over, though I don't have any idea if they actually do that or not.
*super joeyed
Sounds like mama might be an Omega Roo-kin. (j/k)
It would be funnier if she started saying something in the lines of furries shouldn't exist or that's something really bad, and it ended with "mom, I have news for you"
i think its way funnier to assume mom could be a furry if the fursonas were sexier
Jumpin Jesus!
Lemme see that pouch gurl.