… and neither does the author (or so I believe - I made them both up).

On the other hand, AI is definitely good at creative writing.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hallucinations are so strong with this one too… like really bad.

      If I can’t already or won’t be able/willing to verify an output, I ain’t usin’ it - not a bad rule I think.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        I never walk away with an “answer” without having it:

        1. Cite the source
        2. Lookup the source
        3. Permlink you to the source page/line as available
        4. Critique the validity of the source.

        After all that, still remain skeptical and take the discussion as a starting point to find your own primary sources.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          That’s good. Ooh NotebookLM from Google just added in-line citations (per Hard Fork podcast). I think that’s the way: see what looks interesting (mentally trying not to take anything to heart) and click and read as usual.

          BeyondPDF for Mac does something similar: semantic searches your document but simply returns likely matches, so it’s just better search for when you don’t remember specific words you read or want to find something without knowing the exact search criteria.

      • can@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        At least Bing will cite sources, and hell, sometimes they even align with what it said.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Heh yeah if the titles of webpages from its searches were descriptive enough

          Funny that they didn’t have a way to stop at claiming it could browse websites. Last I checked you could paste in something like

          https://mainstreamnewswebsite.com/dinosaurs-found-roaming-playground
          

          and it would tell you which species were nibbling the rhododendrons.

          …wow still works, gonna make a thread

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Clowning

          (I’m not smart enough to leverage a model/make a bot like this but they’ve had too long not to close this obvious misinformation hole)