I don’t blame you. It’s scary how reliant it’s possible to become on it—and there’s something eerie about having an answer to anything available to you in seconds, whether there should be a definitive answer provided to the question or not.
Still, I think there’s an equally positive side to balance out the drawbacks. It’s a technology, and in the right hands, its capabilities can be used to further actual human intelligence.
In the majority of cases, though, it’s probably a net negative (like so many other so-called ‘conveniences’).
I’m still waiting for the virtual Merlin to mentor me to become the best version of myself. I wouldn’t mind also having a virtual Money Penny personal assistant.
You bring up a good point - at first we understood that Google would get us approximate matches to terms, but we had to do the verification ourselves and peruse the result set. But it saved us a trip to the library or having to ask a subject matter expert.
With AI, its eloquence lulls into believe that it has the answers. It doesn’t - it provides approximations based on the likelihood that it can predict grammar and sentence structure paired with a knowledge base. Hence the inconsistent results.
Lately Google has become fairly useless, it buries a lot of results. I was prepping for a podcast and wanted to read an original article I had heard narrated in a YouTube. I had the title, the publication and the author, so I fired up Perplexity AI. Perplexity uses Claude, ChatGPT and Google, and does a nice job of providing references and ancillary video and pics that comprise its answer. When I asked perplexity to locate the article online, it gave me a different article by the same author written 5 years later on a different topic related to the main theme I was prepping for. So I went back to Google and found it.
AI sounds so authoritative we assume it derives that authority from accuracy. It just sounds like Spock,
Yep, check the AI. Of course it's good to check other sources as well.
I've an American history, Queen of the Republics, published in the 1890s. Reading modern day renderings of our history, I'll often (OK these days occasionally.) pull it off the shelf and check. A hundred years or so sometimes makes a big difference in how historical facts are presented or viewed.
I just did a quick search concerning Ralph Waldo Emerson's aunt Mary Moody's burial shroud (Long story, maybe another time I'll tell.).
ChatGPT had nothing;" While there are historical references to her life and work, artifacts like a "death shroud" are not commonly documented in mainstream historical literature." Goggled, actually duck duck goed, & found numerous references. The story has been modified, elaborated, dressed up, quite a bit since I first read about her in the fifties though.
You break it down well how to use it best Melissa, but I don't Trust it all.
I don’t blame you. It’s scary how reliant it’s possible to become on it—and there’s something eerie about having an answer to anything available to you in seconds, whether there should be a definitive answer provided to the question or not.
Still, I think there’s an equally positive side to balance out the drawbacks. It’s a technology, and in the right hands, its capabilities can be used to further actual human intelligence.
In the majority of cases, though, it’s probably a net negative (like so many other so-called ‘conveniences’).
Right Melissa. Like most everything very convenient for us: One more huge Trap in the minimizing and likely culling of humanity.
I’m still waiting for the virtual Merlin to mentor me to become the best version of myself. I wouldn’t mind also having a virtual Money Penny personal assistant.
You bring up a good point - at first we understood that Google would get us approximate matches to terms, but we had to do the verification ourselves and peruse the result set. But it saved us a trip to the library or having to ask a subject matter expert.
With AI, its eloquence lulls into believe that it has the answers. It doesn’t - it provides approximations based on the likelihood that it can predict grammar and sentence structure paired with a knowledge base. Hence the inconsistent results.
Lately Google has become fairly useless, it buries a lot of results. I was prepping for a podcast and wanted to read an original article I had heard narrated in a YouTube. I had the title, the publication and the author, so I fired up Perplexity AI. Perplexity uses Claude, ChatGPT and Google, and does a nice job of providing references and ancillary video and pics that comprise its answer. When I asked perplexity to locate the article online, it gave me a different article by the same author written 5 years later on a different topic related to the main theme I was prepping for. So I went back to Google and found it.
AI sounds so authoritative we assume it derives that authority from accuracy. It just sounds like Spock,
Yep, check the AI. Of course it's good to check other sources as well.
I've an American history, Queen of the Republics, published in the 1890s. Reading modern day renderings of our history, I'll often (OK these days occasionally.) pull it off the shelf and check. A hundred years or so sometimes makes a big difference in how historical facts are presented or viewed.
I just did a quick search concerning Ralph Waldo Emerson's aunt Mary Moody's burial shroud (Long story, maybe another time I'll tell.).
ChatGPT had nothing;" While there are historical references to her life and work, artifacts like a "death shroud" are not commonly documented in mainstream historical literature." Goggled, actually duck duck goed, & found numerous references. The story has been modified, elaborated, dressed up, quite a bit since I first read about her in the fifties though.