• kazerniel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    38 minutes ago

    “With fewer visits to Wikipedia, fewer volunteers may grow and enrich the content, and fewer individual donors may support this work.”

    I understand the donors aspect, but I don’t think anyone who is satisfied with AI slop would bother to improve wiki articles anyway.

    • drspawndisaster@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      17 minutes ago

      The idea that there’s a certain type of person that’s immune to a social tide is not very sound, in my opinion. If more people use genAI, they may teach people who could have been editors in later years to use genAI instead.

      • kazerniel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 minutes ago

        That’s a good point, scary to think that there are people growing up now for whom LLMs are the default way of accessing knowledge.

  • MystValkyrie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I’m part of the problem. I now use Le Chat instead of search engines because AI destroyed search engines, thanks to all the content mills that make slop. I wish search engines just worked, and it’s a classic example of capitalism creating problems to justify new technology.

    And I wonder if it’s just AI. I know some people moved to backing up pre-2025 versions of Wikipedia via Kiwix out of fear that the site gets censored. I know now that I’ve done that, it’s a no-brainer to just do my Wikipedia research without using bandwidth.

    • tb_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Search engines will still give Wikipedia results at the top for relevant searches. Heck, you can search Wikipedia itself directly!

      Both Ecosia and DuckDuckGo support some form of “bangs”, if I tack !w onto my search it’ll immediate go through to Wikipedia.
      DuckDuckGo has even introduced an AI image filter, which is not perfect but still pretty good.

  • anticurrent@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I am kinda a big hater on AI and what danger it represents to the future of humanity

    But. as a hobby programmer, I was surprised at how good these llms can answer very technical questions and provide conceptual insight and suggestions about how to glue different pieces of software together and which are the limitations of each one. I know that if AI knows about this stuff it must have been produced by a human. but considering the shitty state of the internet where copycat website are competing to outrank each other with garbage blocks of text that never answer what you are looking for. the honest blog post is instead burried at the 99 page in google search. I can’t see how old school search will win over.

    Add to that I have found forums and platforms like stack overflow to be not always very helpful, I have many unanswered questions on stackoverflow piled-up over many years ago. things that llms can answer in details in just seconds without ever being annoyed at me or passing passive aggressive comments.

  • Mrkawfee@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    I asked a chatbot scenarios for AI wiping out humanity and the most believable one is where it makes humans so dependent and infantilized on it that we just eventually stop reproducing and die out.

    • AceOnTrack@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I use Wikipedia when I want to know stuff. I use chatGPT when I need quick information about something that’s not necessarily super critical.

      It’s also much better at looking up stuff than Google. Which is amazing, because it’s pretty bad. Google has become absolute garbage.

      • kadu@scribe.disroot.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It’s also much better at looking up stuff than Google.

        Or maybe it’s just as bad but extremely confident, so you accept the wrong results. ChatGPT is just looking at Reddit and Google search results through an additional layer of language processing, it can’t possibly be better than either. Every day AI bros tell us “no seriously now they fixed search!” and I do the exact same benchmark of 10 easy questions that you can first an answer to within the first five results of a traditional search, and they fail on 6 out of 10.

        • AceOnTrack@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          To get a decent result on Google, you have to wade through 2 pages of ads, 4 pages of sponsored content, and maybe the first good result is on page 10.

          ChatGPT does a good job at filtering most of the bullshit.

          I know enough to not just accept any shit from the internet at face value.

          • kadu@scribe.disroot.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 hours ago

            To get a decent result on Google, you have to wade through 2 pages of ads, 4 pages of sponsored content, and maybe the first good result is on page 10.

            Block ads and use a different search engine?

            ChatGPT does a good job at filtering most of the bullshit.

            You repeated that twice, but it’s demonstrably false. It does not. It feeds you completely wrong information randomly.

            I know enough to not just accept any shit from the internet at face value.

            If you’re going to fact check ChatGPT anyway, you’re wasting more time than just doing the research yourself with good tools. But this is a false equivalency, because by doing the research yourself you start to learn good sources and exercise information synthesis, by using ChatGPT and fact checking it you’re helping Sam Altman get richer.

            • AceOnTrack@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              Why the fuck are you defending google so hard lmao.

              Google will absolutely put bad information front and center too.

              And by using Google you make Google richer. In fact you get served far more ads using Google products than chatGPT.

              What’s your fucking point lmao.

              • tb_@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 hour ago

                I think you missed a part of their comment:

                Block ads and use a different search engine?

                Both Ecosia and DuckDuckGo have served me pretty well. Kagi also seems somewhat interesting.
                Ecosia is working with Qwant on their own index, the first version of which has already gone online I believe. So they’re no longer exclusively relying on Bing/Google for their back-end.

              • kadu@scribe.disroot.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 hour ago

                Why the fuck are you defending google so hard lmao.

                Ah yes, when I said “use a different search engine” as a solution to Google having issues I’m certainly defending Google! What an endorsement right? “Use a completely different service” is free publicity for Google!

                Are you slow?

                • AceOnTrack@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 minutes ago

                  Other search engines are even worse than Google lmao. Brave consistently provide literally the worst results. Duck duck go same.

                  Are you actually serious.

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    9 hours ago

    because people are just reading AI summarized explanation of your searches, many of them are derived from blogs and they cant be verified from an official source.

  • NoodlePoint@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    I eat out and lately overhearing some people in other tables talking about how they find shit with ChatGPT, and it’s not a good sign.

    They stopped doing research as it used to be for about 30 years.

    • MBech@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I can’t really fault them for it tbh. Google has gotten so fucking bad over the last 10 years. Half of the results are just ads that don’t necesarily have anything to do with your search.

      Sure, use something else like Duckduckgo, but when you’re already switching, why not switch to something that tends to be right 95% of the time, and where you don’t need to be good at keywords, and can just write a paragraph of text and it’ll figure out what you’re looking for. If you’re actually researching something you’re bound to look at the sources anyway, instead of just what the LLM writes.

      The ease of access of LLMs, and the complete and utter enshittyfication of Google is why so many people choose an LLM.

      • buttnugget@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I believe DuckDuckGo is just as bad. I think they changed their search to match Google. I’m not sure if you are allowed to exclude search terms, use quotes, etc.

    • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Assuming this AI shit doesn’t kill us all and we make it to the conclusion that robots writing lies on websites perhaps isn’t the best thing for the internet, there’s gonna be a giant hole of like 10 years where you just shouldn’t trust anything written online. Someone’s gonna make a bespoke search engine that automatically excludes searching for anything from 2023 to 2035.

    • BigBenis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I was chatting with some folks the other day and somebody was going on about how they had gotten asymptomatic long-COVID from the vaccine. When asked about her sources her response was that AI had pointed her to studies and you could viscerally feel everybody else’s cringe.

      • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        8 hours ago

        asymptomatic long-COVID

        The hell even is that? Asymptomatic means no symptoms. Long-COVID isn’t a contagious thing, it’s literally a description of the symptoms you have from having COVID and the long term effects.

        God that makes my freaking blood boil.

        Damn @BigBenis@lemmy.world that was a hell of a conversation you we having.

    • FosterMolasses@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      How ironic that school teachers spent decades lecturing us about not trusting Wikipedia… and now, the vast majority of them seem to rely on Youtube and ChatGPT for their lesson plans. Lmao

      • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        89
        ·
        13 hours ago

        There’s a lot of problems with Wikipedia, but in my years editing there (I’m extended protected rank), I’ve come to terms that it’s about as good as it can be.

        In all but one edit war, the better sourced team came out on top. Source quality discussion is also quite good. There’s a problem with from positive/negative tone in articles, and sometimes articles get away with bad sourcing before someone can correct it, but this is about as good as any information hub can get.

        • vin@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          And don’t forget the British-American bias. Hopefully the automated translation and adaptation that is being pursued by wikipedia helps to improve it.

        • SaraTonin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I remeber an article form a decade or more ago which did some research and said that basically, yes there are inaccuracies on Wikipedia, and yes there are over-simplifications, but** no more than in any other encyclopaedia**. They argued that this meant that it should be considered equally valid as an academic resource.

      • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        It’s worth checking out the contribs and talk regarding articles that can be divisive. People acting with ulterior motives and inserting their own bias are fairly common. They also make regular corrections for this reason. I still place more faith and trust in Wikipedia as an info source more than most news articles.

      • mistermodal@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        43
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        The site engages in holocaust denial, apologia for wehrmacht, and directly collaborates with western governments. On the talk pages users will earnestly tell you that mentioning napalm can stick to objects when submerged in water constitutes “unnecessary POV”, and third-degree burns are painless because they destroy nerve tissue (don’t ask how the tissue got destroyed, and they will not be banned for this so get used to it). Jimmy Wales is a far-right libertarian. It might be a reliable source of information for reinforcing your own worldview, but it’s not a project to create the world’s encyclopedia. Something like that would at least be less stingy about what a “notable sandwich” is.

    • krypt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      growing up I got taught by teachers not trust Wiki bc of misinformation. times have changed

        • krypt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          subject at hand was wikipedia, but it applies to any wiki format I guess - just check sources.

      • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        Nope, we all misunderstood what they meant. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, it is a derivative work. However, you can use the sources provided by the Wikipedia article and use the article itself to understand the topic.

        Wikipedia isn’t and was never a primary source of information, and that is by design. You don’t declare information in encyclopedias, you inventory information.

        • krypt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          “Nope” to what exactly? you regurgitated what I said - but told us how you misunderstood it

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Wikipedia was not then what it is now. You’re spot on with all that, spot on, but in the early days it wasn’t nearly as trustworthy.

          • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Fair enough, I’m not old enough to remember those days of Wikipedia, my memory starts in roughly 2010 wrt Wikipedia use 😅

            • ɯᴉuoʇuɐ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              You can check old versions of any article by clicking ‘history’. And yeah, the standards used to be pretty low.

        • unphazed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          15 hours ago

          We homeschool our daughter. Saw a cool history through film course that taught with an example movie every week to grow interest… nothing in the itinerary said they’d play a video of Columbus by PragerU. They refused the refund, as it was 2 weeks in, and said it was used to foment conversation, but no other video was being offered or no questions were prepared to challenge the children. I worded my letter to call out the facts about Columbus vs the video, and the lack of accreditation of the source. I tried not to be the “lib”, but I very much got the gist that’s their opinion of me, and how they brushed me off. That fucking site is a plague on common sense, decency, and truth. Still fired up, and it was last month. We pulled her out of the course immediately after the video.

          • Devmapall@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            I can’t imagine homeschooling. Not that I think it’s bad but that it has to be so hard to do. And harder still to do it right.

            Glad you pulled out of that course. PragerU is hot garbage and I hate how my autocorrect apparently knows PragerU and didn’t try to change it to something else.

            How hard do you find it to homeschool? How many hours do you reckon it takes a day?

            • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 hours ago

              You’ve gotta keep in mind that in a regular school your kid is one of 20-30 for the teacher and they are lucky if they get five minutes of individual help/instruction. Everything else is just lecture, reading, and assignments.

              It doesn’t have to be onerous. We homeschooled until around 3rd grade. Even so, the other kids they are in school with are academically… not stellar. My youngest (13) has a reading disability and she struggles to pass classes. She still frequently finds herself helping out other students because they are even worse off.

              I’m not anti-public education, but whether it’s Covid or just republicans gutting the system, public education is in a state right now. I figure funding needs to increase by 30-50%. Kids need more resources than they are getting. And until they do, homeschooling isn’t an unreasonable option. But it’s not for everyone, of course. One parent has to work (or not) from home or odd hours.

    • slaacaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      One thing I don’t get: why the fuck LLM’s don’t use wikipedia as a source of info? Would help them coming up with less bullshit. I experimented around with some, even perplexity that searches the web and gives you links, but it always has shit sources like reddit or SEO optimized nameless news sites

      • vividspecter@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Perplexity is okay with more academic topics at the least, albeit pretty shallow (usually isn’t that different to google). There might be a policy not to include encyclopedias, but it would be an improvement over SEO garbage for sure.

        • slaacaa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          54 minutes ago

          Yeah, I use it instead of search, as that has gone to shit years ago due to all the SEO garbage, and now it’s even worst with AI generated SEO garbage.

          At least this way I get fast results, and mostly accurate on the high level. But I agree that if I try to go deeper, it just makes up stuff based on 9 yrs old reddit posts.

          I wish somebody built an AI model that prioritized trusted data, like encyclopedias, wiki, vetted publication, prestige news portals. It would be much more useful, and could put Google out of business. Unfortunately, Perplexity is not that

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I’ve been meaning to donate to those guys.

    I use their site frequently. I love it, and it can’t be cheap to keep that stuff online.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      For Firefox on Android (which TenBlueLinks doesn’t have listed) add a new search engine and use these settings:

      Name: Google Web

      Search string URL: https://www.google.com/search?q=%s&udm=14

      as @Saltarello@lemmy.world learned before I did, strip the number 25 from the string above so it looks more like this:

      www .google.com/search?q=%s&udm=14

      Edit: Lemmy/Voyager formats this string with 25 at the end. Remove the 25 & save it as a browser search engine

      EDIT: There’s got to a Markdown option for disabling markdwon auto-formatting links, right?? The escape backslash seems to not be working for this specifically.

      EDIT II: Found a nasty hack that does the trick!

      https[]()://www.example.com/search?q=%s

      appears as:

      https://www.example.com/search?q=%s

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Yeah switching search links will help but it’s a band-aid. AI has stolen literally everyone’s work without any attempt at consent or remuneration and the reason is now your search is 100 times faster, comes back with exactly something you can copy & paste and you never have to dig through links or bat away confirmation boxes to find out it doesn’t have what you need.

    It’s straight up smash-n-grab. And it’s going to work. Just like everybody and their grandma gave up all their personal information to facebook so will your searches be done through AI.

    The answer is to regulate the bejesus out of AI and ensure they haven’t stolen anything. That answer was rendered moot by electing trump.

    • IndescribablySad@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      I don’t know about you, but my results have been wrong or outdated at least a quarter of the time. If you flip two coins and both are heads, your information is outright useless. What’s the point in looking something up to maybe find the right answer? We’re entering a new dark age, and I hate it.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        I’ve been asking a bunch of next-to-obvious questions about things that don’t really matter and it’s been pretty good. It still confidently lies when it gives instructions but a fair amount of time it does what I asked it for.

        I’d prefer to not have it, because it’s ethically putrid. But it converts currency and weights and translates things as well as expected and in half the time i’d spend doing it manually. Plus I kind of hope using it puts them out of business. It’s not like I’d pay for it.

        • madsen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          15 hours ago

          I refuse to believe that it’s in any way better or faster at unit and currency conversion than plain Google or DuckDuckGo. Literally type “100 EUR to USD” and you’ll get an almost instant answer. Same with units: “100 feet to meters”.

          And if you’re using it, you’re helping their business. It’s as simple as that.

          • Eranziel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            14 hours ago

            100%. Unit conversion is a solved problem, and it is impossible for an AI to be faster or more accurate than any of the existing converters.

            I do not need an AI calculator, because I have no desire to need to double check my calculator.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Curious what and how you’re prompting. I get solid results, but I’m only asking for hard facts, nothing that could have opinion or agenda inserted. Also, I never go past the first prompt. There be dragons that way.

        • IndescribablySad@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Niche history and mineralogy topics. Just looking for threads to tug. I found that it offered me threads but they often did not lead anywhere relevant or outright did not exist. Which is fine, but kinda removes my need for AI. If I have a general purpose question, I check certain websites. I already know how to serve myself everyday information. AI’s just not helpful for my use case.

          Overall, It’s time neutral. But it raises my blood pressure when it hallucinates, and dying of a stroke is undesirable for me.