I was mentally stuck on a question one day and asked three different AIs for help. I got three very different answers. I didn’t actually use any of them, but having them broke my mental jam.
1 Like
Some time ago two private groups within Facebook shared a warning that anything written there may become publicly known. That was after one member had asked a question from an AI and got a word-for-word citation from a comment written recently in the private group. The AI did even tell the source and the date when the comment was posted, so there was no doubt that the AI had followed discussions within the private group. That the groups were private, only the members could see the comments, did not prevent the AI from following what was written.
I do not remember what AI was following those groups. Possibly more than one AI are following us. Be careful what you write anywhere, any discussion may be followed by one or more AIs, as these examples show.
yeah here is my thoughts…
Unless you actually go and look at the AI screenshots carefully (clearly you don’t bother), because if you did you would realise that all AI responses on search engines have real world references attached. I usually ensure that those are visible on the “RHS” of the images!!!
Go back and actually look at all of the ones i post…almost always, they contain numerous website URL references…references which you could easily input into google and seek out should you really want to actually learn something other than parroted garbage someone else gave to you in your childhood.
For those dummies here who think that AI is actually generating information from its own brain matter, that is simply not true. AI generates information from existing libraries…ie online publications most often URLS!!!
Now im starting to get angry as this insults the intelligence of those of us who are not mislead by stupid conspiracy theorests and their idiotic claims about AI.
A great deal of science goes into developing AI…the programming of these platforms costs tens of billions of dollars in real world individuals valuable time and effort. These are some of the greatest scientific minds on the planet who create these things…anyone trashing them who claims to be science based is delusioned in their ignorance.
This entire thread reminds me of Forest Gumps saying…Stupid is stupid does!
Perhaps what is really needed here is a plee to ban conspiracy theory stupidity.
I may be YEC, however, i am the first person to stand up and preach in favour of AI…i can attest that it has not only improved my life, it makes my own wifes job as a primary teacher so much easier…so much so, most here could not possibly imagine or understand how much easier her job is as a result. the workload that is being placed on my wife has almost driven her to depression…if it wasnt for AI, i doubt she would be able to continue in her job anymore. So yes, this is bloody close to my heart and i make no apologies for that and this thread pisses me off to be honest!
screenshots are used in favour of copying the text simply because its hard to argue with an image!
Who? Which posts, for example?
Why not just post and comment on what you think the valuable content from those references? Nobody is objecting to AI as a research tool.
The garbage that was given to me in my childhood was Acts & Facts from the Institute for Creation Research. Fortunately, I have learned a great deal since.
AI, of course, is the ultimate gigaparrot.
Images such as graphs or photographs can demonstrate a point, but arguing with a AI screenshot is a waste of time, and if such usage gets out of control, will effectively amount to a denial of service attack and posters and readers will just give up and leave.
Appropriate policies for AI on the forum has nothing to do with a judgement on the value, utility, and potential of AI generally.
3 Likes
I think this is part of a current class-action lawsuit against Google, which apparently samples from any site that uses google services in any way. And despite the “private browsing” feature, Google watches it all anyway.
1 Like
ChatGPT and Google’s AI have both admitted to me that they had invented references. Why did I ask? First because I recognized the name of an author and couldn’t find any evidence of the work cited, second because one work cited sounded interesting so I searched for it and found no evidence that the author even existed.
And Grok has caught ChatGPT and Google’s AI misrepresenting and flat-out inventing stuff.
Plus ChatGPT and Google’s AI have both admitted that they can’t tell if a source is valid, that they can be misled, that they thus can misrepresent and even falsify material.
I don’t know if I trust Grok or not, but I haven’t caught it doing anything sketchy . . . yet.
See the above: ChatGPT and other AIs apparently are conspiracy theorists.
And they admit that their AIs aren’t even as smart as a four-year-old because the AI doesn’t actually have intelligence, it is just a very fancy mimic.
2 Likes
- What?! AI has less brains than the Scarecrow in Oz? Go back to the Bush.
Pesonally, I value copying AI results, when I am responding to someone who states something rather absurd, and I simply post the same question into google and get a far more reasonable resposne, which I can post to demonstrate that my interlocurtor is radically misunderstanding the point that even an AI engine can follow…
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.