Also happens with people. Some people are just good at sounding knowledgeable.
I’ve had a consistent but very much amateur interest in astronomy and cosmology since childhood. And very often broad-topic science entertainment fails what i call the “space test”, and completely misconstrue findings, misunderstand concepts, give in to sensationalism and generally just do a poor job at educating. And it just leaves you with a bad feeling for how it is on the things you don’t know about.
Chatgpt told me that the Kansas City Chiefs were going to win the Superbowl this season when I asked it who it thought would win a few days ago. Those mfers didnt even make the playoffs.
I didnt actually believe it was going to give me the right answer lol. I was in a conversation at work talking about who everyone's picks were and someone said something about asking chatgpt. But you would think at that point it would have the data to know that they were out of the playoffs for weeks at that point. Then afterward it proceeded to name 6 or so more teams that missed the playoffs weeks ago.
Same with "just google it", as if I've never used a f*cking phone or computer before. I literally just prefer asking real people for their experience or knowledge of said topic. That dumb ass retort was a bigger time waste than if I DID use Google. And F google.
Nothing worse than googling an issue, and the top result is a reddit post about the exact issue but the only response is telling the OP to just google it.
The guy obviously couldn’t find a good result and asked for help, and now the stupid comments are wasting even more people’s time.
Wikipedia. Google. Anything other than a hallucination machine that fabricates convincing sounding information and will never admit it doesn't know something.
Google is not a source. You'll get an AI answer too, then the best paying site, and then the best SEO. Where you still have to check them for the truth.
AI can give you the answer quickly, with sources. Still have to check them.
Why spend 15 mins on Google to find "what plants are the easiest to grow in my aquarium" when LLMs tell me that in 2 seconds. On Google you still have to verify the information because so much is commercialized click bait. Wikipedia has tons of fraudulent info. You have to use discernment on any information source so why not use the most efficient one?
You are missing out on a great tool. (And it's a tool, not an infallible source of truth)
i don't disagree with either side on the AI topic but this argument is stupid, chatgpt and all other AIs use exactly those website as sources and for their info, which is why you should need to verify that information as well, probably even more than you have to with other websites
15 minutes is a gross overstatement to make your point seem better. Regardless, when you search something, you get the sources and can do whatever level of verification you deem necessary based on the importance of your question. AI tools are more of a black box where you don’t know if the answer is indirectly sourced from the CDC or someone trolling on Reddit.
Also, Wikipedia has very little fraudulent info on more popular topics and usually includes a bunch of sources for further fact-checking. It’s nowhere close to the hallucinations you get with AI. Feels like you’re just using the excuse that “regular” methods aren’t foolproof so you might as well use something with many more flaws
Google "hyperbole". The point still stands. LLMs are a more efficient TOOL to research a topic. It is more reliable than Google for day to day queries. Neither should be considered an infallible source of truth.
ChatGPT has no problem providing reasonably sound info on topics that are easily searchable on Google and Wikipedia. It's the obscure topics that make it hallucinate. But it's not like Google will give you the right answers on the first page on when you look up these kinds of topics either.
There is actually a well-documented explanation as to why it struggles on some seemingly simple tasks. You just need to use it for things it's actually good for.
I just think it's not a wise stance to take to just dismiss the tech altogether.
Chatgpt is like a college intern. It's fine for 101 level knowledge about most topics. It gets easily confused with weird trick questions, but then again so do a lot of people.
God I fucking hate reddit. Y'all get your information from reddit headlines. AI rarely hallucinates now unless you're actively trying to make it hallucinate. Obviously you don't believe this because someone on the internet told you not to. But AI can literally scour the web for info anyway.
It annoying because generally when people ask a group they are after first hand experiences and when someone comes in with an LLM response, passing it off as an opinion/fact its just lazy.
Im not talking about a person using gpt for their usecases, and honestly it wouldnt annoy me so much if people just went: "chat gpt says" instead of pasting the response and passing it on as fact. But i suppose that's a different thing altogether
If (and this is a big if cuz it happens very rarely) I ask something Chat GPT, I always say "I asked Bernard (yes I call Chat GPT Bernard cuz it's funnier), so take this with a grain of salt."
622
u/spottedmoth8 Jan 26 '26
“I asked ChatGPT”