this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
385 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
35452 readers
79 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why do people bring this up every fucking time?
"I used chatgpt"
I asked Gemini, and my browser crashed, so, idk, man I guess it's knowledge too powerful for human minds to contain.
Because they know it's not accurate and explicitly mention it so you know where this information comes from.
Then why post it at all?
Because they'd still like to know? it's generally expected to do some research on your own before asking other people, and inform them of what you've already tried
Asking ChatGPT isn’t research.
ChatGPT is a moderately useful tertiary source. Quoting Wikipedia isn't research, but using Wikipedia to find primary sources and reading those is a good faith effort. Likewise, asking ChatGPT in and of itself isn't research, but it can be a valid research aid if you use it to find relevant primary sources.
At least some editor will usually make sure Wikipedia is correct. There’s nobody ensuring chatGPT is correct.
Just using the "information" it regurgitates isn't very useful, which is why I didn't recommend doing that. Whether the information summarized by Wikipedia and ChatGPT is accurate really isn't important, you use those tools to find primary sources.
I’d argue that it’s very important, especially since more and more people are using it. Wikipedia is generally correct and people, myself included, edit incorrect things. ChatGPT is a black box and there’s no user feedback. It’s also stupid to waste resources to run an inefficient LLM that a regular search and a few minutes of time, along with like a bite of an apple worth of energy, could easily handle. After all that, you’re going to need to check all those sources chatGPT used anyways, so how much time is it really saving you? At least with Wikipedia I know other people have looked at the same things I’m looking at, and a small percentage of those people will actually correct errors.
Many people aren’t using it as a valid research aid like you point out, they’re just pasting directly out of it onto the internet. This is the use case I dislike the most.
From what I can tell, running an LLM isn't really all that energy intensive, it's the training that takes loads of energy. And it's not like regular searches don't use loads of energy to initially index web results.
And this also ignores the gap between having a question, and knowing how to search for the answer. You might not even know where to start. Maybe you can search a vague question, but you're essentially hoping that somewhere in the first few results is a relevant discussion to get you on the right path. GPT, I find, is more efficient for getting from vague questions to more directed queries.
I find this attitude much more troubling than responsible LLM use. You should not be trusting tertiary sources, no matter how good their track record, you should be checking the sources used by Wikipedia too. You should always be checking your sources.
That's beyond the scope of my argument, and not really much worse than pasting directly from any tertiary source.
AI seems to think it’s always right but in reality it is seldom correct.
Sounds like every human it's been trained on
No, it sounds like a mindless statistics machine because that’s what it is. Even stupid people have reasons for saying and doing things.
Yes, stupid people's reason is because Trump said so, so it must be true
It makes idiots whine
Buddy, it's nap time. Catch you in a couple hours when you're feeling better.
A nap does sound good.
Why post anything? Because they wanted to, the same way you posted something that you felt was worth adding. For me it wasn't adding anything. Nonetheless I answer you. Because I wanted to.
People also say they googled, unfortunately
Not the same thing.
google allows for the possibility that the user was able to think critically about sources that a search returned
chapGPT is drunk uncle confidently stating a thing they heard third hand from Janet in accounting and then taking him at his word
Google results are like:
Is peertube compatible with the fediverse?
ADVERT
Introduction: A lot of people wonder if peertube works with other peertube instances....
ADVERT
What is peertube? Peertube was set up in 1989 by john Peer...
Pop-up: do you like our publication? Give us your email address.
ADVERT
Why you might want to set up peertube: peertube is a decentralised way....
ADVERT
Please support us! From £30 a month you can help us to write more.
Wat is the fediverse? The fediverse is a technology...
ADVERT
Articles you may also like:
ADVERT
So can peertube instances talk to each other?
ADVERT
the answer is yes.
ADVERT
In conclusion, peertube is very...
Comments (169)
John Smith wrote at 12:28 on Friday
At this point, ad blocker is pretty much mandatory for me, just like how antivirus software used to be a decade ago (probably more)
PLEASE DISABLE YOUR AD BLOCKER! We use the revenue from annoying you to feed our starving CEO!
Can't wait for them to be starved. Does installing two adblockers speed up the process?
but at least your drunk uncle won't boil the oceans in the process too
How dare you, my drunk uncle is completely capable of boiling the oceans! He was even boasting about it at our last family dinner!
People before ChatGPT thought critically of things on Google as much as they do ChatGPT today.
You’re giving people using google too much credit.
Unfortunately now Google is ChatGPT. It provides its own shitty AI answers, and its search results have been corrupted by an ocean of slop.
Because people are dumber than chatgpt.
It also proves we don't have a 50/50 split in intelligence. We need to look at the mean, then we'll see most people are just plain fucking dumb
Also, lazier. I'm more likely to stick with information from the first 1-3 search results I decided to click, while AI will parse and summarize dozens in fraction of time I spend reading just one.
Honest answer? It's easy and it won't judge you for asking stupid questions.
Edit - people are replying as if I said I do this. I'm sorry for the confusion. I don't. This is why I see other people do it. When it comes to the general population, most people don't care, they just want easy.
Search engines and Wikipedia don't judge you for asking stupid questions either.
You're right, but they take actual thought and effort. People who use chat gpt don't wanna do that.
No it'll just hallucinate shit that'll make you look dumb when you go and state it as fact.
How would you phrase this differently?
"It looks like this feature was added 5 years ago."
If asking for confirmation, just ask for confirmation.
So, your solution is for the user to provide less information and then respond to people to inform them if they used chatgpt if asked?
It just seems like much less reps are used if they say they used ChatGPT.
Additionally, if they don’t say it and no one asks, in the future people might look for a source, at least this way there is a warning there might be misinformation.
I know what your going to say next, they should research the thing themselves independently of ChatGPT, but honestly, they probably don’t care/have the time to look up released notes over the past few years.
Why would anyone ask where they got the info if it is accurate?
The point Is that it might not be accurate. It’s like saying, “a friend told me…”
It lets the reader know that the information being shared was presented as truthful, but wasn’t verified by the commenter themselves.
Apparently the feature was added 5 years ago.
So, your solution is for the user to provide less information and then respond to people to inform them if they used chatgpt if asked?
It just seems like much less reps are used if they say they used ChatGPT.
Additionally, if they don’t say it and no one asks, in the future people might look for a source, at least this way there is a warning there might be misinformation.
I know what your going to say next, they should research the thing themselves independently of ChatGPT, but honestly, they probably don’t care/have the time to look up released notes over the past few years.
My partner describes her bowel movements to me when she returns from her daily ablutions.
This is the golden age of misinformation and you are bitching about citations?