Google has plunged the internet into a “spiral of decline”, the co-founder of the company’s artificial intelligence (AI) lab has claimed.
Mustafa Suleyman, the British entrepreneur who co-founded DeepMind, said: “The business model that Google had broke the internet.”
He said search results had become plagued with “clickbait” to keep people “addicted and absorbed on the page as long as possible”.
Information online is “buried at the bottom of a lot of verbiage and guff”, Mr Suleyman argued, so websites can “sell more adverts”, fuelled by Google’s technology.
That’s such a strange question. It’s almost like you imply that Google results do not need fact checking.
They do. Everything found online does.
With google, it depends on what webpage you end up on. Some require more checking than others, which are more trustworthy
Generative AI can hallucinate about anything
There are no countries in Africa starting with K.
LLMs aren’t trained to give correct answers, they’re trained to generate human-like text. That’s a significant difference.
They also aren’t valuable for asking direct questions like this.
There value comes in with call and response discussions. Being able to pair program and work through a problem for example. It isn’t about it spitting out a working problem, but about it being able to assess a piece of information in a different way than you can, which creates a new analysis of the information.
It’s extraordinarily good at finding things you miss in text.
Yeah. There’s definitely tasks suited to LLMs. I’ve used it to condense text, write emails, and even project planning because they do give decently good ideas if you prompt them right.
Not sure I’d use them for finding information though, even with the ability to search for it. I’d much rather just search for it myself so I can select the sources, then have the LLM process it.
How is this relevant to a discussion about fact checking? People are so weird about AI
Woosh
Not really. Y’all just don’t actually understand or care to understand the tech you’re criticizing. Sound like oldheads, tbh.
This is the same person who defended NFT’s on the basis that “people just don’t get it, maaaan, it’s gonna revolutionize, like, the wooorld.” Without thinking about the social or ethical consequences of embracing a technology that has no social or ethical safeguards.
I’d say you’re closer to that person since you’re the one spouting bullshit about a technology you fundamentally don’t understand.
This article isn’t even about openai’s chatGPT - it’s about an AI that filters the active internet. Try perplexity.ai a few times and let me know if you still think the tech is useless. It’s a baby even in comparison to the baby AIs we have now and I haven’t touched google since I started using it.
If you knew nothing about Africa, congratulations, you don’t know that Kenya exists. It’s a microcosm of what would be a major problem if you don’t fact-check the bot.
That’s not asking for fact checks. That’s telling the machine it’s wrong. It thinks of you as acting in good faith, so it reacts accordingly.
This, like most of these criticisms, has fundamental misunderstandings about the technology.
You didn’t understand what I was saying. You have to independently fact check the bot which means performing Google searches anyway. At that point, it’s redundant to even ask the bot if the endpoint is the same, you’ll be on whatever search engine you’re using trawling results.
In what way is that different from googling the answer and having to get a second source?
This is hysterical, not meaning funny.
deleted by creator
Agree.
I found it more tempting to accept the initial answers I got from GPT4 (and derivatives) because they are so well written. I know there are more like me.
With the advent of working LLMs, reference manuals should gain importance too. I check them more often than before because LLMs have forced me to. Could be very positive.