Some personal examples of how I find it more useful (love to hear yours) and fun to use....
- Wanted to go on a hike an hour away from where both my friend (lives two hours west of me) and I live. Asked GPT what are some good hikes an hour drive away from both of us to meet & hike. With Google I have to do Many searches where GPT just provides the answer right away.
- I count calories and eat out everyday. GPT knows the calories of everything i eat as I eat at chains mostly (Cava, Panera, Starbucks, Chipolte). I tell it via voice what i just ate for my 1st meal, it calculates my calorie count and later I'll tell it what im having for my 2nd meal. It can also recall my calorie count from days ago. It does all this quickly vs. Google i'd have to do oodles of searches.
Usually Im using GPT the most when driving via voice and unlike Siri, GPT understands me and i can have whole conversations with it to get things done while driving.
I can't speak to your personal entertainment experience, but AI chatbots are generally a slower, less accurate way of getting information than a google search. (Though Google polluting search results with a big, often inaccurate, AI result at the top narrows this a bit.)
These blanket statements lead to flame wars.
For me with the two research examples of using GPT I gave/use it for the information is accurate. My friend and I have driven an hour away (for both) a few times (different spots) and hiked. Same goes for calories GPT has in it's knowledge base for well known chains. If it wasnt a chain restaurant GPT might not have it in it's knowledgebase or possibly have it wrong.
To say it is faster to get information from Google than the latest update to Sonnet is simply absurd to me.
I might have even agreed a few months ago but certainly not now.
Wake me up when I can say things like…
Hey, Google, are my custom license plates ready for pick up at the tax office?
Hey, Siri, ask my doctor to refill this medicine.
Hey, Alexa, how many charging stations are broken at the gas station on 16th street?
Hey, Google, why is this plant dying?
Hey, Siri, why are there so many people in my neighborhood today?
Hey, Alexa, did anything ever get done about that story in the newspaper from a couple of years ago about the Chinese slave labor being used to grow pot on illegal farms on the Navajo reservation?
"AI" just doesn't have access to the information required to do anything interesting or useful. And because so much of its information comes from the web, which is already so polluted on certain subject (gardening, travel) as to be useless, the AI becomes useless.
Imagine an AI that popped up when you are reading something and warned you that information is false.
For instance, imagine something like https://theconversation.com/can-ai-talk-us-out-of-conspiracy... helping people discern about news and propaganda.
The less fraught one is warning users that they’re being scammed: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/05/google-wants-ai-to-l...
Now, more seriously, it'd need to put together a coherent argument and back it up with reputable sources, as just citing sources is very ineffective. The article I cited gives more details on possible approaches to that.
With your argument, the problem happens when given person goes to Fox news in the first place. Selection of the source has already been made, with its biases. Not much you can do or expect after this point.
Also, who curates the curator? Again an age old problem with no real, long term working solution in sight. No, you should not expect some statistical model to hold your hand through vast internet, while giving up any form of critical thinking, reasoning, or I guess any cerebral process altogether. Ultimate laziness. Since we know how much money there is in diet fad business, its safe to say this above will find its non-tiny desperate crowd.
There are no sides in objective reality. You might offer competing hypotheses and evidence for those, but we don’t need to do that to know that climate change is real, that it’s caused by humans, and that vaccines work.
try asking chatGPT to only give you true and accurate answers and not make anything up.
That's even without considering the efforts that would be made to undermine any system that showed any effectiveness. A lot of misinformation, probably most of the stuff that gets traction, isn't random, it's serving a purpose and being pushed for that reason.
It's an unfortunate fact that the people most sick will refuse treatment until it's too late. Seen from the inside, insanity looks like lucidity.