> I have to check Bing's sources when I use it anyway, because what it says is often simply wrong.
But at least it gives you the sources, unlike ChatGPT. (And, at least in my experience so far, it is not "often" wrong all. I've had good results.)
But at least it gives you the sources, unlike ChatGPT. (And, at least in my experience so far, it is not "often" wrong all. I've had good results.)
Anecdotally: I know that Wikipedia is not always correct. But I feel like I can build an intuition and reason on what pages I can reasonably trust on Wikipedia, since in my experience, the inaccurate bits I have encountered tend to be in certain categories. However it's much harder to feel confident about my intuition about ChatGPTs' correctness, since my exposure has led me to believe that the hallucinations are fairly random, and not concentrated in particular topics. This makes the tool much less attractive for me, as I feel like I need to double check every written word.
Perhaps I should be less trustful of Wikipedia...
Well, as a semi-regular editor on Wikipedia, I'm probably the wrong person to ask.
But I also find it rather fatiguing to have to check the sources every time.
I also don't know for sure if the times it gave me correct answer were actually correct or if I simply didn't catch the mistake?