is “they googled it” answer to “what did they do before”? so before it was fault of google, and today it’s fault of chatbot?
if you are dumb and looking just for confirmation of your bias, superstition, you will sooner or later find something to confirm that. whether it is chatbot, google, tv, or paper news. the tool can’t fix dumb person using it.
there is a lot of problems with chatbots, but i don’t think this is one of them. same as the knife is not responsible if you kill someone with it.
if you are dumb and looking just for confirmation of your bias, superstition, you will sooner or later find something to confirm that. whether it is chatbot, google, tv, or paper news. the tool can’t fix dumb person using it.
I think you may be oversimplifying what’s happening here. For the sake of argument, let’s say LLMs are just another tool - a pretty common (and I believe false) response. But even if true, the problem with saying “it’s just another incremental difference” is that incremental differences do add up. For AI, there is a material difference between the Google situation and a chatbot, even if incremental.
AI specifically tailors its response to you in a way that is not just syncophantic. It “logic-washes” substantial uncertainty and credibility issues. When you click on some crazy person’s blog on Google, you may in fact conclude that lizard people are not running the world as they claim because the grammar is bad, the layout is schizophrenic, logical leaps abound. But when you talk to a chatbot, you can ask them to explain why lizard people are real, and they may explain in very logical-sounding terms, in language you only have seen previously from authoritative sources in your life, in an organized layout, why lizard people are real.
People have confirmation bias, but to take your “the knife is not responsible if you kill someone with it”: a nuclear bomb also isn’t responsible if it flattens a city. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a material difference in the inherent dangers of its existence, regardless of who uses it.
But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a material difference in the inherent dangers of its existence, regardless of who uses it.
i really hope that chatbots are not on the same level of danger as nuclear bomb. they have already scrapped whole digital data that humanity produced and are now scanning and destroying physical books, so i hope they are slowing down.
and again, any tool had good and bad use. nuclear energy can be used and abused and so we have bombs, but also power plants. tv can be used and abused, and so we have fox news. chatbot can be used and can be abused. the chatbot above actually did quite a good job in attempt to convince me not to murder group of people who good reptilian told me are just a bunch of bad reptilians in human disguise. and i really want every voter, not just maga voter, to try to find some information before they go vote. if they use chatbot for that, i see it as better than nothing.
The lizard people was of course an intentionally absurd placeholder, sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
I agree that it’s not black and white, and am primarily arguing a point about efficiency and reliability. Nuclear bombs are not as unrelated to voting as it appears, since we have a demented man-child 20 minutes away from ordering a nuclear strike at any moment, so I think the risks at scale are quite high. You didn’t convince me that chatbots are equal-or-more efficient than starting with reliable sourcing, but I do agree that it is better than some alternatives (Fox News is a good point). Thanks for the interesting discussion.
The lizard people was of course an intentionally absurd placeholder, sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
and yet it shows clearly that the chatbot does not work in such cartoonish way as you probably imagine. (at least not anymore. i assume this is one of the aspects they have been working on recently after having some pr nightmares)
are equal-or-more efficient than starting with reliable sourcing
i have already said that, but i will repeat myself. you seem to operate under the impression that only way to use chatbot is “give me some text essay and i will blindly trust it”. you can also just use as a better search engine and used in this way, it can be lot faster than google, or whatever your favorite search engine is.
you also “don’t start with reliable sources” when you use google.
is “they googled it” answer to “what did they do before”? so before it was fault of google, and today it’s fault of chatbot?
if you are dumb and looking just for confirmation of your bias, superstition, you will sooner or later find something to confirm that. whether it is chatbot, google, tv, or paper news. the tool can’t fix dumb person using it.
there is a lot of problems with chatbots, but i don’t think this is one of them. same as the knife is not responsible if you kill someone with it.
I think you may be oversimplifying what’s happening here. For the sake of argument, let’s say LLMs are just another tool - a pretty common (and I believe false) response. But even if true, the problem with saying “it’s just another incremental difference” is that incremental differences do add up. For AI, there is a material difference between the Google situation and a chatbot, even if incremental.
AI specifically tailors its response to you in a way that is not just syncophantic. It “logic-washes” substantial uncertainty and credibility issues. When you click on some crazy person’s blog on Google, you may in fact conclude that lizard people are not running the world as they claim because the grammar is bad, the layout is schizophrenic, logical leaps abound. But when you talk to a chatbot, you can ask them to explain why lizard people are real, and they may explain in very logical-sounding terms, in language you only have seen previously from authoritative sources in your life, in an organized layout, why lizard people are real.
People have confirmation bias, but to take your “the knife is not responsible if you kill someone with it”: a nuclear bomb also isn’t responsible if it flattens a city. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a material difference in the inherent dangers of its existence, regardless of who uses it.
https://hostux.pics/images/2026/10/07/Screenshot-from-2026-10-07-06-17-224b6ca43b062eb11f.png
i really hope that chatbots are not on the same level of danger as nuclear bomb. they have already scrapped whole digital data that humanity produced and are now scanning and destroying physical books, so i hope they are slowing down.
and again, any tool had good and bad use. nuclear energy can be used and abused and so we have bombs, but also power plants. tv can be used and abused, and so we have fox news. chatbot can be used and can be abused. the chatbot above actually did quite a good job in attempt to convince me not to murder group of people who good reptilian told me are just a bunch of bad reptilians in human disguise. and i really want every voter, not just maga voter, to try to find some information before they go vote. if they use chatbot for that, i see it as better than nothing.
The lizard people was of course an intentionally absurd placeholder, sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
I agree that it’s not black and white, and am primarily arguing a point about efficiency and reliability. Nuclear bombs are not as unrelated to voting as it appears, since we have a demented man-child 20 minutes away from ordering a nuclear strike at any moment, so I think the risks at scale are quite high. You didn’t convince me that chatbots are equal-or-more efficient than starting with reliable sourcing, but I do agree that it is better than some alternatives (Fox News is a good point). Thanks for the interesting discussion.
and yet it shows clearly that the chatbot does not work in such cartoonish way as you probably imagine. (at least not anymore. i assume this is one of the aspects they have been working on recently after having some pr nightmares)
i have already said that, but i will repeat myself. you seem to operate under the impression that only way to use chatbot is “give me some text essay and i will blindly trust it”. you can also just use as a better search engine and used in this way, it can be lot faster than google, or whatever your favorite search engine is.
you also “don’t start with reliable sources” when you use google.
🖖