Super amazing if all the links are real.
Google did just have to remove some query responses from their ai because it was lying about blood tests and giving out unsafe info iirc, so there is that.
As someone who’s seen plenty of people not employ those other tools or practices, I tend to side with the “it’s not a great tool for research” at least by laymen.
Maybe if computers and steam engines were being forced into everyday life and into use by people who do not understand how to use them appropriately or the context of any of the answers given out, the critics would also have been riled up.
As it is, computers and steam engines were prohibitively expensive and so only got used by actual experts long enough for basic use protocols to work their way into society and a slow entry into public use. Not really the same thing at all.
AI and LLMs are being forced on everyday users without much recourse and so you get a lot more problematic use both by malicious users and by people who don’t understand, which is entirely the fault of the tool and the companies making the tool.
In our company the benefits are very real. In my daily life the benefits are real
I said it has to be used properly. It’s not the fault of the technology if people don’t use it correctly.
And trying to pretend computers and communications like phones and emails weren’t available to everyone is ridiculous. Social media is available to everyone and forced on everyone, and most people don’t know how to use it. It’s not knowing how to use it that causes problems.
So it seems we agree it can augment research, which is a separate issue from whether everyone should use it for research. Baby steps.
Super amazing if all the links are real. Google did just have to remove some query responses from their ai because it was lying about blood tests and giving out unsafe info iirc, so there is that.
Yeah there is a right way to use it just like any other tool or technology.
Seems like a lot of people think research might not be on the “right way” list.
Well, they’re idiots. It’s a fantastic research tool, in combination with other tools and practices.
As someone who’s seen plenty of people not employ those other tools or practices, I tend to side with the “it’s not a great tool for research” at least by laymen.
Laymen are not good at research, tools notwithstanding.
That’s an indictment on them, not the tools.
The critics would have been criticizing computers and probably the steam engine.
Maybe if computers and steam engines were being forced into everyday life and into use by people who do not understand how to use them appropriately or the context of any of the answers given out, the critics would also have been riled up.
As it is, computers and steam engines were prohibitively expensive and so only got used by actual experts long enough for basic use protocols to work their way into society and a slow entry into public use. Not really the same thing at all.
AI and LLMs are being forced on everyday users without much recourse and so you get a lot more problematic use both by malicious users and by people who don’t understand, which is entirely the fault of the tool and the companies making the tool.
In our company the benefits are very real. In my daily life the benefits are real
I said it has to be used properly. It’s not the fault of the technology if people don’t use it correctly.
And trying to pretend computers and communications like phones and emails weren’t available to everyone is ridiculous. Social media is available to everyone and forced on everyone, and most people don’t know how to use it. It’s not knowing how to use it that causes problems.
So it seems we agree it can augment research, which is a separate issue from whether everyone should use it for research. Baby steps.