Hacker News Reader

I hope either the information you needed was just personal curiosity or that you verified with sources what ChatGPT was reporting. The hallucination problem is still terrible with no real solutions from OpenAI apart from "we're working on it."

IMHO, fully cosigning that google search has gotten worse and the AI shit is only going to make that even worse, using ChatGPT as a replacement feels crazy to me. Like yeah, Google gets it wrong sometimes, sure, but ChatGPT just makes shit up. Is a dumbass better or worse than a confident liar? Guess that's up to the user to decide.

False information problem is terrible as well on the internet. And if I were to guess based on usage, GPT generates an order of magnitude less error than a random reddit or stackoverflow or quora answer.

Reading posts like this I'm reminded of the teachers who told me not to cite wikipedia because it's not reliable who 20 years later are spouting whatever right wing nonsense is the flavour of the month on facebook.

Close enough is good enough. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs to just not be catastrophically wrong.

But many chatgpt hallucinations are catastrophically wrong. For example when querying for things related to advanced scientific subjects in physics and medicine for starters from my own experience.

I really want to give this a pass but the worst thing is that you can't really see where it turns from correct to incorrect, like you would usually pick up with a human teacher or peer when you start to get a feeling they really don't know what they're talking about. ChatGPT will gladly keep hallucinating references and reasonings that sound superficially plausible until you look them up, because that's what it's trained to output..

If they could just find a way to cut it off when it starts to become too unsure, it would be a big improvement.

I love that in our current moment if you will, that Luddism has been reduced to a binary, with zero nuance whatsoever. Either you are FOR every introduction of technology, every automation, every convenience, every new product regardless of it's demonstrated, documented deleterious effects, or you're an extremist boomer who refuses to learn email. There's no in-between at all.

I recall a time when a popular joke amongst tech people was that a tech enthusiast was someone who had every new smart home accessory and every new gadget and used them all, and a tech engineer was someone who had nothing more advanced in his house than a laser printer and he kept a gun in the same room in case it ever made a noise he didn't recognize.

I guess we're just more enthusiastic than we used to be. I like my smart switches, but I don't like the notion of all human knowledge being only accessible to me through the filter of a word generator. If that makes me a Luddite, then Luddite I am.

I apply the Gell-Mann Amnesia test to my sources. Wikipedia mostly lines up with what I know. ChatGPT is usually batshit insane

They're entitled to their business model. They're not entitled to it being successful.

> I recently need to find some details of hardware implementations for a feature. I used Google to find specs for this hardware. The specs were hard to read or didn't explain things as I needed. So I asked ChatGPT and it gave me what I needed. It first regurgitated info from the specs but I was able to ask it to explain pieces in more detail and it was great! At what point do I just stop using Google search to find an answer?

But was it accurate ? Chat GPT just provided you with the statistically most likely specs. If the actual doc for this hardware is lacking, this is 100% hallucinations.

My experience is that ChatGPT is simply bullshitting you (sometime accurately), Google is drowning the info in 20 links (where they try to make you buy "Hardware you're searching for"), and you have to go to DuckDuckGo to find the thing you're actually searching for.

I wonder how much of that pattern (Google won't give me shit, better ask GPT) is Google's own fault. Their search engine has been degraded so much that, if their LLM results are based on its search, it won't match the specificity of GPT's results. They seem to have pushed people into ChatGPT's arms. If they had consistent search services, I think less people would flock to GPT, which would give them more room to develop their own LLMs properly instead of just rushing crap like Bard or Gemini's inconsistent stuff. The gamble to rush things means you run the risk of shooting yourself in the foot and letting the other runners catch up

Honestly I see a ton more ads on YouTube than search as I use Kagi but I can't avoid YouTube. I'm sure they have other future revenue streams for ad placement.

Check out FreeTube

Thanks, however ethically I think it's OK to be seen ads or otherwise pay for content, as long as I can opt out of tracking.