I’m not the original commenter. And I didn’t want to offend you, just wanted give some friendly advice, because it irks me how many people seem to use chatGPT for fact finding. Chill
Chat GPT often makes mistakes. They call them “hallucinations”. And at one point it completely made up court cases that got two lawyers sanctioned for using.
You can retrieve sources from chat gpt. And that is besides the point that i didn’t simply rely on gpt. Even without prompting, i did my own digging on google, found his wiki page looked up articles about Paul and filming at a memorial and only found the incident from 2002. Thats two more paths to sources that failed me.
Chat gpt is a tool that is useful if used right, but even i did not take its word for it.
Chat gpt said things you can evaluate, which i did by googling it. And when i could not find the event in question, i went back into Lemmy and asked for more information. So tell me where i err’d? Was it not taking the posters word on it? Or trying to get context in the first place?
Once when you flat out failed to find anything using Google, when other people clearly had no trouble at all. If you’re telling the truth, this just means you suck at Google. There’s no reason to be googling chatgpt’s hallucinations instead of searching for the stuff an actual human told you about.
The second time was when you took chatgpt seriously. Just don’t. It’s a very expensive toy that occasionally does something cool. We’re still trying to figure out if it’s actually useful for anything, or if it’s just really good at appearing useful.
Two: when google did not return anything useful, for WHATEVER REASON, i didn’t come back and assume the event didn’t happen, i asked for MORE info, like a good little netizen.
It’s very clear that you “attempted” to call the original commenter out for false information, just ‘subtly’ in case you were wrong, and got called out yourself for it.
Your defensiveness is just making it more clear. That’s why you’re getting down voted.
“Wellstone also staged a news conference in front of the Vietnam War Memorial on the National Mall, drawing the ire of many veteran groups. Wellstone later said the event was a mistake.”
Fair enough, though editing the comment made it difficult to realize you did provide what i asked for. I never called any one a lier. Just that when i went to chat gpt for context to what the other said it flat out told me it didn’t happen, which is uncharacteristic of chat gpt sycophantic tendencies. Usually talking a passive voice, or assuming i am making up a scenario and rolling with it. So i did google it and found that he was not considered controversial, and if the wiki mentioned it, it was only as a foot note.
Everything i looked up pointed to the 2002 incident. Not sure why i am being dog piled here.
Either way it seems odd to reference this as a Paul Wellstone ‘event’
I’m not the original commenter. And I didn’t want to offend you, just wanted give some friendly advice, because it irks me how many people seem to use chatGPT for fact finding. Chill
I do not understand why people ask chatgpt for factual information
The same reason people use google to look something up instead of going to the library
Chat GPT often makes mistakes. They call them “hallucinations”. And at one point it completely made up court cases that got two lawyers sanctioned for using.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/05/27/lawyer-uses-chatgpt-in-federal-court-and-it-goes-horribly-wrong/
Chat GPT is not a search engine no matter how much Bing tries to tell you it is.
Google returns sources that you can evaluate for accuracy.
Chatgpt just says things.
Every output of chatgpt should end with “source: just trust me bro”.
You can retrieve sources from chat gpt. And that is besides the point that i didn’t simply rely on gpt. Even without prompting, i did my own digging on google, found his wiki page looked up articles about Paul and filming at a memorial and only found the incident from 2002. Thats two more paths to sources that failed me.
Chat gpt is a tool that is useful if used right, but even i did not take its word for it.
Chat gpt said things you can evaluate, which i did by googling it. And when i could not find the event in question, i went back into Lemmy and asked for more information. So tell me where i err’d? Was it not taking the posters word on it? Or trying to get context in the first place?
You
err’dfucked-up twice.Once when you flat out failed to find anything using Google, when other people clearly had no trouble at all. If you’re telling the truth, this just means you suck at Google. There’s no reason to be googling chatgpt’s hallucinations instead of searching for the stuff an actual human told you about.
The second time was when you took chatgpt seriously. Just don’t. It’s a very expensive toy that occasionally does something cool. We’re still trying to figure out if it’s actually useful for anything, or if it’s just really good at appearing useful.
Ok, one: chill the fuck out
Two: when google did not return anything useful, for WHATEVER REASON, i didn’t come back and assume the event didn’t happen, i asked for MORE info, like a good little netizen.
Three: the event chat gpt referenced was NOT a hallucination: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/10/paul-wellstone-s-memorial-service-turns-into-a-pep-rally.html Surprise! When i looked up Paul Wellstone and filming at a memorial , this is the event i found for the first page.
Four: me bringing up chat gpt was due to just how uncharacteristic it shut down my query. So i did my due diligence. Chill out.
It’s very clear that you “attempted” to call the original commenter out for false information, just ‘subtly’ in case you were wrong, and got called out yourself for it.
Your defensiveness is just making it more clear. That’s why you’re getting down voted.
“Wellstone also staged a news conference in front of the Vietnam War Memorial on the National Mall, drawing the ire of many veteran groups. Wellstone later said the event was a mistake.”
Fair enough, though editing the comment made it difficult to realize you did provide what i asked for. I never called any one a lier. Just that when i went to chat gpt for context to what the other said it flat out told me it didn’t happen, which is uncharacteristic of chat gpt sycophantic tendencies. Usually talking a passive voice, or assuming i am making up a scenario and rolling with it. So i did google it and found that he was not considered controversial, and if the wiki mentioned it, it was only as a foot note.
Everything i looked up pointed to the 2002 incident. Not sure why i am being dog piled here.
Either way it seems odd to reference this as a Paul Wellstone ‘event’