rosenjcb@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoYou cant even avoid irrelevant results with "site:" anymorelemmy.worldimagemessage-square151fedilinkarrow-up1627arrow-down163
arrow-up1564arrow-down1imageYou cant even avoid irrelevant results with "site:" anymorelemmy.worldrosenjcb@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square151fedilink
minus-squarequeermunist@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down9·1 year agoAs opposed to Google searching manually, which always has accurate outputs and never outputs falsehoods as fact. 🙂 As long as you double check the source of an answer I don’t see an issue.
minus-squareT156@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·1 year agoIf you’re double-checking the sources, both to make sure that they exist, and they are accurate, you may as well do the research without using an LLM in the first place. You’re just adding to your workload unnecessarily in that case.
As opposed to Google searching manually, which always has accurate outputs and never outputs falsehoods as fact. 🙂
As long as you double check the source of an answer I don’t see an issue.
If you’re double-checking the sources, both to make sure that they exist, and they are accurate, you may as well do the research without using an LLM in the first place.
You’re just adding to your workload unnecessarily in that case.