|
| ▲ | mmh0000 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I disagree. I personally consider these my biggest problems with the Web: - Bias, specifically commercial bias
- Webpage formatting: every website looks different, hides the information I want in different places. Sure, it "looks pretty", but I don't want pretty; I want info
- Scams/SEO/etc...
The LLMs are very good at reading from multiple sources, parsing, and presenting only the data in a consistent format. There are many examples of this, but if you want a good one to try for yourself:Google "How to make ham fried rice"; you'll get 10,000 articles, most pretty good recipes. But they're all different; most of them are just bait for ads. And most of them, the 10-line recipe is hidden between 50 useless paragraphs about how serving food is life's most important goal. Now, ask an LLM to search for it, find the best combination, and list only the recipes. You get a perfect, 10-line recipe that doesn't waste your time. |
| |
| ▲ | johneth an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | LLMs are not unbiased. Nothing is unbiased. | | |
| ▲ | tekla an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah I had to laugh at that. LLM's solve commercial bias? Coming from seemingly multiple the most valuable companies of all time? |
| |
| ▲ | sethops1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And if you're lucky, it won't include rocks as an ingredient. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city an hour ago | parent [-] | | They're an important part of your diet if you happen to have a gizzard. I've also been known to include some ground up rocks in my meals. I'm pretty picky though about them, I mostly just want a couple specific varieties. |
| |
| ▲ | altmanaltman 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why even use a LLM, just buy a cookbook and you can even waste less time and know the information is valid. And again if your logic is consistent, google routes your search to an LLM automatically and renders the reply - that will save as much time and do the same thing since LLMs are so good at parsing and presenting information. So why should I pick an LLM over google's inbuilt LLM or an actual cookbook on the desk? What wasted time is the LLM saving? |
|
|
| ▲ | falcor84 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Well agreed, but it's not new, the web has been actively made user hostile by every website owner and their "273 partners". |
|
| ▲ | ako 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe, but it's reality. Not too long ago the rule would be "if it doesn't show up in google, it doesn't exist". Today agents+LLMs are better browsers than Chrome/Safari/Firefox/... If a webpage does not show up in an LLM it may as well not exist. |
|
| ▲ | grumbel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How is that grim? It's the dream of the Semantic Web coming true, just by different means than planed. |
| |
| ▲ | infinitezest 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because the economic, social, and climate impacts are at best uncertain and at worst devastating to the majority of human beings on the planet. It's always surprising to me that people don't intuitively separate the usefulness of AI from its risks. It feels like everyone has to be a doomer or a booster. |
|
|
| ▲ | aprdm 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why do you feel that ? |
| |
| ▲ | sdellis 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Because AI cannot be trusted as a reliable source of information. Information is more trustworthy when it comes from from primary sources on the open web. | | |
| ▲ | aprdm 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why not ?
Can google be trusted ? Or facebook ?
How do people have been accessing the internet for the last decade you reckon and how's this any different ? | | |
| ▲ | lunar_mycroft an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Google (as it originally) existed wasn't a source of information, it was an *index* of it. You were trusting google as a source for {search_query}, you were trusting the links it gave as a source (based on your own evaluation). LLMs are fundamentally different, because you are trusting the software to actually generate the information in a truthful way. If you use google (sans AI), you're putting some trust in their page ranking algorithm. If you use it with AI, you're trusting the same algorithm (since that's how the model gets it's sources), but then you're trusting the model to evaluate the sources for credibility and extract the information you actually want. | |
| ▲ | antiterra an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I routinely run into Claude Opus and Fable making basic mistakes like misunderstanding a simple negation, which would be on top of whatever reliability issues there are with a source. I think that means it is functionally very different. | |
| ▲ | giantrobot 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Can google be trusted ? Or facebook ? No. Neither can be trusted as far as you can throw them. They're both incredibly invasive data brokers. Their customer facing products are just vehicles to show ads and Hoover up more PII and behavioral data on everyone. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | doc_ick 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 100% |
