zlacker

>>meetpa+(OP)
This is one of those “don’t be evil” like articles that companies remove when the going gets tough but I guess we should be thankful that things are looking rosy enough for Anthropic at the moment that they would release a blog like this.

The point about filtering signal vs. noise in search engines can’t really be stated enough. At this point using a search engine and the conventional internet in general is an exercise in frustration. It’s simply a user hostile place – infinite cookie banners for sites that shouldn’t collect data at all, auto play advertisements, engagement farming, sites generated by AI to shill and produce a word count. You could argue that AI exacerbates this situation but you also have to agree that it is much more pleasant to ask perplexity, ChatGPT or Claude a question than to put yourself through the torture of conventional search. Introducing ads into this would completely deprive the user of a way of navigating the web in a way that actually respects their dignity.

I also agree in the sense that the current crop of AIs do feel like a space to think as opposed to a place where I am being manipulated, controlled or treated like some sheep in flock to be sheared for cash.

>>4corne+5R1
Current LLMs often produce much, much worse results than manually searching.

If you need to search the internet on a topic that is full of unknown unknowns for you, they're a pretty decent way to get a lay of the land, but beyond that, off to Kagi (or Google) you go.

Even worse is that the results are inconsistent. I can ask Gemini five times at what temperature I should take a waterfowl out of the oven, and get five different answers, 10°C apart.

You cannot trust answers from an LLM.

>>jorvi+U42
> I can ask Gemini five times at what temperature I should take a waterfowl out of the oven, and get five different answers, 10°C apart.

Are you sure? Both Gemini and ChatGPT gave me consistent answers 3 times in a row, even if the two versions are slightly different.

Their answers are inline with this version:

https://blog.thermoworks.com/duck_roast/

>>signat+Pb2
What do you mean, "are you sure"? I literally saw and see it happen in front of my eyes. Just now tested it with slight variations of "ideal temperature waterfowl cooking", "best temperature waterfowl roasting", etc. and all these questions yield different answers, with temperatures ranging from 47c-57c (ignoring the 74c food safety ones).

That's my entire point. Even adding an "is" or "the" can get you way different advice. No human would give you different info when you ask "what's the waterfowl's best cooking temperature" vs "what is waterfowl's best roasting temperature".

>>jorvi+lK2
Did you point that out to one of them… like “hey bro, I’ve asked y’all this question in multiple threads and get wildly different answers. Why?”

And the answer is probably because there is no such thing as an ideal temperature for waterfowl because the answer is “it depends” and you didn’t give it enough context to better answer your question.

Context is everything. Give it poor prompts, you’ll get poor answers. LLMs are no different than programming a computer or anything else in this domain.

And learning how to give good context is a skill. One we all need to learn.

>>cruffl+zO2
If I made a new, not-AI tool called 'correct answer provider' which provided definitive, incorrect answers to things you'd call it bad software. But because it is AI we're going to blame the user for not second guessing the answers or holding it wrong ie. bad prompting.