You cant even avoid irrelevant results with "site:" anymore - eviltoast
  • T156@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That seems rather risky, considering that they don’t really check that they output accurate information, and OpenAI specifically recommends against using it for that due to the possibility of their GPT models outputting falsehoods as fact.

    • queermunist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      As opposed to Google searching manually, which always has accurate outputs and never outputs falsehoods as fact. 🙂

      As long as you double check the source of an answer I don’t see an issue.

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you’re double-checking the sources, both to make sure that they exist, and they are accurate, you may as well do the research without using an LLM in the first place.

        You’re just adding to your workload unnecessarily in that case.

        • alternative_igloo@lemmy.fmhy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not necessarily true, LLMs are a very useful research aid because they give you a place to start. They give you a high level summary and may cite sources which may/may not exist, and it’s up to you to fact check and develop your own opinions. They can also summarize complex texts and filter out SEO garbage that would otherwise clutter google search results. Research still works the same as before, LLMs are just an accelerator if used correctly.