By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I've never used ChatGPT or gone out of my way to use any AI tool.
Having said that, I use Bing to search the internet but on occasions it produces a summary of the subject you are searching at the top of the page which I think is generated by CoPilot.
From what I've found those summaries are not necessarily accurate, so I discount them.
I made a search last night on a fairly uncontroversial topic, and got back a fairly uncontroversial summary response, but I did see the summary was from infowars.
I then clicked on the link to infowars and the article had a pop-up inviting me to donate to Alex Jones.
What's that all about: and I don't mean what is infowars and who is Alex Jones?
The automated summaries built into search engines (like Bing/CoPilot snippets) are designed and subsequently generated to be helpful but they don’t check source credibility or accuracy of their searches, simply turn search responses into a coherent response. That’s why you can see a perfectly‑worded summary that points at a dubious site such as Infowars, it's a big danger that it can take obvisouly biased sources and make them sound valid.
Generative AI tools (like ChatGPT or OpenAI) is far more useful as a creative assistant, tasks like brainstorming, drafting, rewriting text and explaining how things work, rather than as a simple fact‑finder.
The automated summaries built into search engines (like Bing/CoPilot snippets) are designed and subsequently generated to be helpful but they don’t check source credibility or accuracy of their searches, simply turn search responses into a coherent response. That’s why you can see a perfectly‑worded summary that points at a dubious site such as Infowars, it's a big danger that it can take obvisouly biased sources and make them sound valid.
Generative AI tools (like ChatGPT or OpenAI) is far more useful as a creative assistant, tasks like brainstorming, drafting, rewriting text and explaining how things work, rather than as a simple fact‑finder.
As I suggested in my OP, I took the view from day 1 that what I called summaries, and you call snippets, were not accurate.
The production of a link to information on infowars merely emphasised the position but in a rather shocking way.
I think the issue is that they appear in a prominent position (ie. at the top on the first page and in blue) so that many will take them at face value on fact-based issues.
As it is, I tend to use the internet only for fact-finding, and think it best to dig around, check the credibility of the source and come to my only conclusions.
Machine Learning (I refuse to accept the standard of AI has been met) is only as good as the data it is provided - and that is what people need to remain objective with. Where it excels at is knowing where to sign post people into going to research something as is side steps a lot of the pagescore elements of a search engine and looks at a much broader selection of data. The actual answers it summarises is really not all that reliable in a lot of situations.
The best way of showing how it flounders is if you try to get it to do specific things with the DOM (document object model) on a website build - it will lead you around the houses without really grasping the cause and effect of one change onto the other for the layout.
So, in short, the *what* is questionable, the *where* is super useful
also
"I think the issue is that they appear in a prominent position (ie. at the top on the first page and in blue) so that many will take them at face value on fact-based issues."
Welcome to PageScore, the very thing that made google blow up in the first place, and a reason why search engines are objectively crap. This is not an "AI" thing, this is a very deliberately designed thing.
Machine Learning (I refuse to accept the standard of AI has been met) is only as good as the data it is provided - and that is what people need to remain objective with. Where it excels at is knowing where to sign post people into going to research something as is side steps a lot of the pagescore elements of a search engine and looks at a much broader selection of data. The actual answers it summarises is really not all that reliable in a lot of situations.
The best way of showing how it flounders is if you try to get it to do specific things with the DOM (document object model) on a website build - it will lead you around the houses without really grasping the cause and effect of one change onto the other for the layout.
So, in short, the *what* is questionable, the *where* is super useful
also
"I think the issue is that they appear in a prominent position (ie. at the top on the first page and in blue) so that many will take them at face value on fact-based issues."
Welcome to PageScore, the very thing that made google blow up in the first place, and a reason why search engines are objectively crap. This is not an "AI" thing, this is a very deliberately designed thing.
[Post edited 22 Sep 16:02]
I don't use google but by PageScore I assumed you mean the algorithms that get sites higher up the page on a search, which I know about.
But I did a Bing search for the term and it came up with this snippet at the top of the page on page 1 of the search.
"The term "page score" typically refers to a metric used to evaluate the performance of a webpage. Here are some key points:
PageSpeed Insights: This tool analyzes a webpage's performance on both mobile and desktop devices, providing a score that reflects the user experience and suggestions for improvement.
GTmetrix: This tool generates scores for your pages using Lighthouse and offers actionable recommendations on how to optimize them.
Misconceptions: It's important to note that a page score measures the optimization level of a page rather than its load speed in seconds or milliseconds.
For more detailed analysis, you can use tools like PageSpeed Insights or GTmetrix to get specific scores and recommendations for your webpage."
I can't say a lot of this makes sense, but is it in your view an accurate description of the term you used?
I don't use google but by PageScore I assumed you mean the algorithms that get sites higher up the page on a search, which I know about.
But I did a Bing search for the term and it came up with this snippet at the top of the page on page 1 of the search.
"The term "page score" typically refers to a metric used to evaluate the performance of a webpage. Here are some key points:
PageSpeed Insights: This tool analyzes a webpage's performance on both mobile and desktop devices, providing a score that reflects the user experience and suggestions for improvement.
GTmetrix: This tool generates scores for your pages using Lighthouse and offers actionable recommendations on how to optimize them.
Misconceptions: It's important to note that a page score measures the optimization level of a page rather than its load speed in seconds or milliseconds.
For more detailed analysis, you can use tools like PageSpeed Insights or GTmetrix to get specific scores and recommendations for your webpage."
I can't say a lot of this makes sense, but is it in your view an accurate description of the term you used?
[Post edited 22 Sep 16:37]
Sorry, The page rank algorithm.
If you go to 8m 40s on this documentary it breaks down how it works in an interesting way, it uses a football match to to visualise it. This whole documentary is well worth an hour if interested in algorithms as a general topic
The chief thing about AI (as with ordinary search engines) is asking the right question and doing it with precision. Plus cross-checking your results. It has to be kept on a fairly tight leash, otherwise it can wander off in odd directions - or occasionally imagine stuff to fill the gaps if it can't find real answers.
I think the caveat of using 5 words or more in a search to get better results stands up better than ever 20 years on. The more you detail it as a general rule the better results you get from search engines, even moreso for AI.
I think the caveat of using 5 words or more in a search to get better results stands up better than ever 20 years on. The more you detail it as a general rule the better results you get from search engines, even moreso for AI.
I suppose it depends on what you are searching in the case of a search engine.
I was watching at the end of Channel 4 news, and the words Shana Tova appeared along with a mention of the Jewish new year.
I therefore searched that expression to find that it meant Good Year in the context of Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish new year holiday).
I then searched "Rosh Hashanah 2025" and found it began at sundown today and concludes at nightfall on Wednesday.
I suppose it depends on what you are searching in the case of a search engine.
I was watching at the end of Channel 4 news, and the words Shana Tova appeared along with a mention of the Jewish new year.
I therefore searched that expression to find that it meant Good Year in the context of Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish new year holiday).
I then searched "Rosh Hashanah 2025" and found it began at sundown today and concludes at nightfall on Wednesday.
[Post edited 22 Sep 20:39]
Don't discount Wikipedia as an alternative to Bing, AI etc. It still suffers a bit from the occasional hack but nothing like the free for all it was twenty years ago (anyone remember the link someone on here posted to Lee Trundle's Wikipedia page that was obviously updated by a Cardiff fan ?) but the peer reviewed nature of the model prevents a lot of bias and there are moderators with a strong legal background behind that peer review process (as I found out myself on an addition to Bob Dylan's page...)
Don't discount Wikipedia as an alternative to Bing, AI etc. It still suffers a bit from the occasional hack but nothing like the free for all it was twenty years ago (anyone remember the link someone on here posted to Lee Trundle's Wikipedia page that was obviously updated by a Cardiff fan ?) but the peer reviewed nature of the model prevents a lot of bias and there are moderators with a strong legal background behind that peer review process (as I found out myself on an addition to Bob Dylan's page...)
I couldn't agree more. It's often my first port of call for many things, and I even quoted it in a post on the Palestine thread a little earlier. I also gave them a tenner last week in response to one of their appeals.
It is also the way we search, as there are a number of tools to manipulate your search results:
I imagine Bing (which I use) has something similar (and I am aware of the quotes option) but I tend to find I always get the information I want without too much trouble.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
