And what is the accuracy rate of the average Google search? Are you applying this extreme level of skepticism to everything you search for or only to LLM output?

I've seen this pattern enough times here that it's actually becoming infuriating for how bad faith it is. Look, we both know that there is a gradient on how people use the information they receive. On one side of that scale is how you claim LLM's work, bullshit generators that are wrong so often they are not useful, and so regularly everything you read is presumed bullshit – except applied to everything. On the other side of that scale is homo credulus, a fictional sub species of human that blithely accepts anything they are told without checking it against anything, be it common sense, their own working model of the world, other information, anything. They just take it and run with it.

Neither of these approaches are useful and neither of them match reality.

I am asking, begging you even, to knock it off already. The hyperbole you are spouting is not useful and it is demonstrably not correct.

> And what is the accuracy rate of the average Google search?

Probably more than 99%, certainly more than ChatGPT. Haven't used GPT-4 though so maybe that even the gap.

So the more than 99% comes exactly where from? Some gut feeling?

Oh boy how i wish the information i find on Google, Wikipedia, etc. were mostly correct 95% of the time. 95% is actually a fantastic goal to strive for to gain something useful from your own research. Only a fool would assume to have 100% correct information from a quick search.

I think their point is that GPT is less of a search engine replacement and more of a reddit/Quora replacement.

You wouldn't use reddit to ask for straightforward facts that are easily referenced from an official source, if they're important, because you'd have to verify any answers against the official source for accuracy anyway. You would use it for more open-ended questions/prompts, and then you would keep a critical eye out for inaccurate information and misinformation/trolling.

ChatGPT isn't even at 70%.

> Oh boy how i wish the information i find on Google, Wikipedia, etc. were mostly correct 95% of the time

For me is more like 99%, if I search for something and I find the answer, it is correct. Sometimes I just don't find what I am looking for, and this is the 1%.

Using ChatGPT is like using "I'm feeling lucky" feature in Google, but you are only allowed to use it once, and you are stuck with the result you got. You NEVER know if what GPT produced is true or not, and any fact requires double check.

I tried to use GPT-3 as google for some quick searches but I stopped because using standard search was much more efficient at the end of the day.

> for me

I question the objectivity of these percentages

Oh boy, have you tried Googling for stock prices?

Obviously, the prices aren't completely real time. Almost no one has that.

But ChatGPT is just going to be constantly wrong.

The cases of this are endless.

ChatGPT is good at writing you a song in the style of Shakira. It's not good at accurately describing current facts - because it doesn't have them.

Google invented LLMs long before ChatGPT - and never really added them to Search - because they just aren't that useful for the things people search for.

People will start searching for generative stuff. That's a new market.

People aren't going to ask ChatGPT what's the best couch to buy for their living room - because there's a good chance ChatGPT is going to make up a couch that doesn't even exist!