• Nalivai@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    You are spending more time and effort doing that than you would googling old fashioned way. And if you don’t check, you might as well throwing magic 8-ball, less damage to the environment, same accuracy

    • bradd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      When it’s important you can have an LLM query a search engine and read/summarize the top n results. It’s actually pretty good, it’ll give direct quotes, citations, etc.

      • Nalivai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        And some of those citations and quotes will be completely false and randomly generated, but they will sound very believable, so you don’t know truth from random fiction until you check every single one of them. At which point you should ask yourself why did you add unneccessary step of burning small portion of the rainforest to ask random word generator for stuff, when you could not do that and look for sources directly, saving that much time and energy

        • PapstJL4U@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          I, too, get the feeling, that the RoI is not there with LLM. Being able to include “site:” or “ext:” are more efficient.

          I just made another test: Kaba, just googling kaba gets you a german wiki article, explaining it means KAkao + BAnana

          chatgpt: It is the combination of the first syllables of KAkao and BEutel - Beutel is bag in german.

          It just made up the important part. On top of chatgpt says Kaba is a famous product in many countries, I am sure it is not.