When I tried it in the past, I kinda didn’t take it seriously because everything was confined to its instance, but now, there’s full-featured global search and proper federation everywhere? Wow, I thought I heard there were some technical obstacles making it very unlikely, but now it’s just there and works great! I asked ChatGPT and it says this feature was added 5 years ago! Really? I’m not sure how I didn’t notice this sooner. Was it really there for so long? With flairs showing original instance where video comes from and everything?

    • waldfee@feddit.orgEnglish
      0·
      5 days ago

      Because they’d still like to know? it’s generally expected to do some research on your own before asking other people, and inform them of what you’ve already tried

          • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            0·
            5 days ago

            No, it sounds like a mindless statistics machine because that’s what it is. Even stupid people have reasons for saying and doing things.

            • iopq@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              4 days ago

              Yes, stupid people’s reason is because Trump said so, so it must be true

            • Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
              0·
              5 days ago

              If those people are inaccurately spouting ‘facts’ from some article they can barely remember, yeah that’s pretty much exactly the same output.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          0·
          5 days ago

          ChatGPT is a moderately useful tertiary source. Quoting Wikipedia isn’t research, but using Wikipedia to find primary sources and reading those is a good faith effort. Likewise, asking ChatGPT in and of itself isn’t research, but it can be a valid research aid if you use it to find relevant primary sources.

          • deranger@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            0·
            4 days ago

            At least some editor will usually make sure Wikipedia is correct. There’s nobody ensuring chatGPT is correct.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              0·
              4 days ago

              Just using the “information” it regurgitates isn’t very useful, which is why I didn’t recommend doing that. Whether the information summarized by Wikipedia and ChatGPT is accurate really isn’t important, you use those tools to find primary sources.

              • deranger@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                0·
                4 days ago

                I’d argue that it’s very important, especially since more and more people are using it. Wikipedia is generally correct and people, myself included, edit incorrect things. ChatGPT is a black box and there’s no user feedback. It’s also stupid to waste resources to run an inefficient LLM that a regular search and a few minutes of time, along with like a bite of an apple worth of energy, could easily handle. After all that, you’re going to need to check all those sources chatGPT used anyways, so how much time is it really saving you? At least with Wikipedia I know other people have looked at the same things I’m looking at, and a small percentage of those people will actually correct errors.

                Many people aren’t using it as a valid research aid like you point out, they’re just pasting directly out of it onto the internet. This is the use case I dislike the most.

    • Taiatari@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
      0·
      5 days ago

      Why post anything? Because they wanted to, the same way you posted something that you felt was worth adding. For me it wasn’t adding anything. Nonetheless I answer you. Because I wanted to.