Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   マリオ (Mario Menti) (mario@neko.cat)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 23:10:25 JST マリオ (Mario Menti)

   I have no doubt ChatGPT and LLMs have a lot of extremely useful applications, but when people talk about conversational AI replacing "traditional" search and being a threat to Google Search et al, I don't buy it.
   I tried this the other day - ChatGPT gives a confident but completely wrong answer to the second question (Michelle Zauner, being American-Korean, has of course no American-Japanese grandmother that cooked her Japanese-style breakfasts).

   As long as you have to independently verify every answer that ChatGPT gives you for correctness (typically via, you guessed it, a web search), just using web search to begin with seems a lot more efficient.

   And it's not even just about the proportion of correct vs incorrect answers it gives. Even if it was 10 times as accurate as it is today, I can't imagine conversational AI ever being a useful tool for search, unless it comes with links to source references (which, being an LLM, I'm not sure it would be able to provide, but of course I'm no expert).

   #ChatGPT #LLM #AI #Search

   • Embed this notice
     マリオ (Mario Menti) (mario@neko.cat)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 23:30:18 JST マリオ (Mario Menti)

     in reply to

     • Edo :unverified:

     @edo78 I'm well aware of that, but on Google (or Duckduckgo or whatever, I don't use Google myself), you get a list of results and can compare and look into all of them. On ChatGPT you get one response, with no idea if it's correct or not, unless you follow it up with a web search (which is my point).
     And as I said at the start, I am convinced there are very many useful applications for it, I just can't see it replacing web search as such (or at least not in a generic sense, it will be easier for specific, and mostly technical, use cases like Stackoverflow).

   • Embed this notice
     Edo :unverified: (edo78@mastodon.uno)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 23:30:19 JST Edo :unverified:

     in reply to

     @mario SPOILER: you have to indipendently verify also everything you read on the internet.
     It's not "right" just because google put it in the first page.

     I get your point but I'm using google to find for tech answers and chatgpt is very good at that. I can ask also for code or for CLI commands with complex parameters (eg. `convert`) and it helps even if not at the first try. Just provide the error you get and chatgpt will suggest a better answer with an explaination

   • Embed this notice
     マリオ (Mario Menti) (mario@neko.cat)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 23:32:54 JST マリオ (Mario Menti)

     in reply to

     • Edo :unverified:

     @edo78 and for CLI commands, what's wrong with "man" ?

   • Embed this notice
     マリオ (Mario Menti) (mario@neko.cat)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 23:59:44 JST マリオ (Mario Menti)

     in reply to

     • Matt :idic: 🌌

     @matt yeah, I don't doubt that. As I tried to say, I am pretty convinced it can be a useful and powerful tool for many use cases, it's just that I can't see it replace "general" or "all-purpose" web search

   • Embed this notice
     Matt :idic: 🌌 (matt@oceanplayground.social)'s status on Thursday, 19-Jan-2023 23:59:45 JST Matt :idic: 🌌

     in reply to

     @mario I've had similar experiences with an entirely different domain of knowledge - I think it's a useful tool for "provoking thoughts" around an area you have knowledge

     like if I want to generate some ideas for a video game, or figure out why some code doesn't work, even ChatGPT's wrong answers will get me thinking in a way that can be helpful - but I do think it's important that the person using it is qualified to detect BS