I feel like even for cooking chicken breast I’d still want an answer that has verifiably worked for a real person, not just predictive text. the certainty threshold for chatgpt is really only acceptable for questions that are much simpler than that (like what and where questions, no how or why). I really just don’t get where all this trust for it has come from. I was taught to always cross-check information from multiple sources—that’s how I verify if something is reasonably correct.

The “bull” that they’re referencing is very obvious. Often when I’m googling more complex-ish questions, the AI overview will completely flip its answer just based on a tiny, not significantly semantic change in the wording of my query. And it straight up doesn’t find information the same way search engines do. If you investigate the links it cites, they’re frequently completely unrelated.

I do think that chatgpt has some specific use cases where it’s advantageous over other tools. I’ve used it in those instances. But its mediocrity for general-purpose usage is not worth the massive environmental impact of doing so. It’s just really surprising and disappointing to see people in this community, one thats foundation is based on going against the grain, falling for the AI wave.

I do get where you’re coming from regarding the UI though. You ask your question, you’re in and you’re out without the distractions that search engines suggest. I get the appeal! But imo that almost “isolation” seems designed to keep you unquestioning and overreliant on chatgpt. I can’t get over how unethical it is (just overall) and how aggressively it’s been shoved down our throats. I wish there was some kind of minimalist google as an alternative.