The output is also always a statistically correlative combination of various sources in petabytes
so is first page of google search.
again. you gather information (with whatever tool you prefer) and then you verify them (with whatever tool you prefer).
if you go through both steps thoroughly, it really doesn’t matter much what is your preferred tool.
and again - if the alternative to this would be just watching fox news, then any attempt to gather some independent information is progress. baby steps.
Yes, but the sources are there and you can limit to credible sources before you look. You pick reliable ingredients and you make a reliable cake. Starting with a cake, provenance unknown, and trying to see if its origins match your standards, is slower.
and again - if the alternative to this would be just watching fox news, then any attempt to gather some independent information is progress. baby steps.
Yeah, at least this I’ll agree with (for now). Fox News is intentional disinformation, LLMs are accidental disinformation. I’d rather the latter.
But obviously that changes based on the LLM, version, and training data. LLMs have intentional and unintentional biases (like searching for Tianenmen Square massacre information on a Chinese LLM, and now those biases exist even in US LLMs based on QWEN).
And even now, they are extremely susceptible to suggestion. For example, if a Fox-brained voter says, “What are the reasons I should vote for Ken Paxton and why is Talarico a communist?” that will be a very different outcome than “Who should I vote for in Texas?”
so is first page of google search.
again. you gather information (with whatever tool you prefer) and then you verify them (with whatever tool you prefer). if you go through both steps thoroughly, it really doesn’t matter much what is your preferred tool.
and again - if the alternative to this would be just watching fox news, then any attempt to gather some independent information is progress. baby steps.
Yes, but the sources are there and you can limit to credible sources before you look. You pick reliable ingredients and you make a reliable cake. Starting with a cake, provenance unknown, and trying to see if its origins match your standards, is slower.
Yeah, at least this I’ll agree with (for now). Fox News is intentional disinformation, LLMs are accidental disinformation. I’d rather the latter.
But obviously that changes based on the LLM, version, and training data. LLMs have intentional and unintentional biases (like searching for Tianenmen Square massacre information on a Chinese LLM, and now those biases exist even in US LLMs based on QWEN).
And even now, they are extremely susceptible to suggestion. For example, if a Fox-brained voter says, “What are the reasons I should vote for Ken Paxton and why is Talarico a communist?” that will be a very different outcome than “Who should I vote for in Texas?”