Useless. Unless you are dumb enough to trust the result without verifying it yourself. And if you do verify it, at that point you spend more time than just doing a regular search.
- i find its useful to get your toes dipped in a new topic, summarized in a neat way. most of the actual search results doing that are now ai garbage too anyway.
  of course you should always verify.
- I think that's a little unfair: not everyone has the know-how to verify, and not everyone who can has the know-how to do original research on every potential topic they want to learn about.
  If we all went by your logic here, none of us would put any stock in books, essays, encyclopedias, nothing.
  Yes, comprehending what you read is important, but expecting everyone to original research on everything they want to learn is just not practical.
  AI can be a valuable tool, in addition to critical thinking skills, if used properly.
  
  You are missing the point. You don't have to become a subject expert to verify the information. Not all sources are the same, some are incorrect on purpose, some are incorrect due to lax standards. As a thinking human being, you can decide to trust one source over the other. But LLMs sees all the information they are trained on as 100% correct. So it can generate factually incorrect information while believing what it provided you are 100% factually correct.
  Using LLMs as a shortcut to find something is like playing a Russian roulette, you might get correct information 5 out of 6 times, but that one time is guaranteed to be incorrect.
  
  If you think that LLM'S are anything like encyclopedias, you fundamentally misunderstand what an LLM is. Its a story teller. Its not designed to be right its designed to engaging.
  Encyclopedias are designed to be knowledge bases. Things you can rely on to give correct answers. LLM's are not. They can be pushed towards that, but their very foundation is antithetical to that and it makes them very hard to believe.

I actually think it's really fucking (ducking?) cool.
I'm not gonna lie: it actually changed my perception of AI chat engines.
I truly believe now that it CAN be very good as a technology if used (and sourced) ethically. ChatGPT is very problematic in this respect, but Claude—though limited as a result—seems like a good step in the right direction.
- You realize "Claude" literally just using an API for ChatGPT 3.5 and using Bing is better because it's leveraging GPT version 4? GPT-4 is multi modal and significantly faster. And also DDG AI is just as intrusive as Bing AI in the shit that it is tracking from you.
  
  Can you please provide a source for that claim?
  Because I can find multiple sources that state they use separate LLMs but not one that states Claude uses Chat-GPT's LLM:
  Claude's 195K context exceeds ChatGPT's 4K context in GPT-3.5.
  Claude 3 was trained with data up to August 2023. In contrast, ChatGPT was trained on data leading up to January 2022.
  Source: ”4 things Claude AI can do that ChatGPT can't”, ZDnet, 2024-04-20
  ChatGPT [and] Claude all use different language models (LLMs) to process and respond to prompts
  ChatGPT uses GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. If you're using the free version of ChatGPT, you'll be interacting with GPT-3.5. But if you're using ChatGPT Plus, OpenAI's paid chatbot version, you'll be interacting with GPT-4.
  ⋮
  Claude, created by Anthropic, uses its most recent LLM version, Claude 2.1.
  Source: "ChatGPT vs. Perplexity vs. Claude: AI Chatbot Tools Compared", How-To Geek, 2023-12-11
   
  Also, Claude has a number of privacy & ethical restrictions baked into its protocols:
  https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/7996885-how-do-you-use-personal-data-in-model-training

After this post I started using it and I actually really like it. However I wish it would search instantly instead of requiring me to click again

Seriously?? I guess... It makes sense, DDG stopped being good like 2 or 3 years ago.

24 comments