in the early 2000s, my mom was sending me nonsense emails and I was replying with snopes links. In the 2010s, that basically changed to her posting nonsense on Facebook.

So many people don't bother fact checking at all.

it´s like people believe what they see in advertisting and take that as information....

also your post reminded me of people who were annoyed when they had to wash hands because of covid. and I was really shocked that this seemed something new to them.

What also worries me is that Chatbots give different answers when you ask the same question in different languages. Even the sources GPT mentioned were different.

There is really no I in AI.

a person very close to me doesn't trust Wikipedia because "anybody can write there" (in spite of it being one of the few big multi-party curated media), but will happily take as truth any random conspiracy theory someone relays on social media, even if it doesn't make any sense at all once you apply a drop of logic to it...

e.g.: fakenews.pl/en/environment/rai…

Rainforest Alliance, atrazine, and Bill Gates. We verify the narratives around the green frog logo - Fakenews.pl

The Rainforest Alliance logo on food products has been causing strong emotions among conspiracy theorists for a long time. The organization has been

^{Mateusz Zadroga (Foundation "Counteracting Disinformation")}

Yeah that makes sense.

By the way who is still depending on ChatGPT for search results?

People feel first, and _maybe_ think after. No guarantee on that second part, however. But when people do think, their gut reaction is to think in line with what supports their feeling. It takes a lot of training to not do that, and still it will be done quite a lot.

This is but one reason why humans have always been gullible.

All the #AI haters out there, note what this post says: that humans who fail to use their intellect and uncritically rely on *any* #technology to think for them are hallucinating themselves, doesn't matter if it's #ChatGPT or a #Google search or the conspiracy theory your uncle posted on #Facebook.

If you or someone you know have ever started a sentence "On TikTok..." then the robots have already taken over your/their brain and I couldn't care less what you think about AI! @pheonix

P.S. You're on Reddit!

It caught our attention because you used Publer to share this masterpiece.

reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitte…

And its not like its made any information any more accessible. If something wasn't already readily available by Web search (even if you had to know where to look) then it's not going to be available to ChatGPT (or any other LLM, for that matter).

It doesn't even list sources (like Wikipedia, or most good bloggers) so there's no way to know where it's getting the information when it gives you something wild.

And the time 'saved' by not doing one's own reading is probably not going to be helpful, especially if it's spent having to undo the problems that relying too much on ChatGPT caused.

(With that being said, there's also a lot of fantastic sources on all sorts of subjects that have either vanished from the Web, been deliberately removed - either by creators or through copyright strikes and the like - or have vanished behind paywalls. And that seems to have been happening more and more. Not sure why, maybe it's just me noticing it, but - on some topics it's definitely gotten more difficult to fact check unless you've got a good base of (saved or off-line) resources already.)

one time in a sociology class (about 20 years ago), someone brought in a printout of a website that claimed that there had been a successful male pregnancy by transplanting a uterus. It had a bunch of fake citations and everything. Even the teacher concluded it was probably real, there were only a couple of us pointing out that anyone could make a web page that said anything.

It's only gotten worse since then

Once when pointing out to a Facebook friend that a political post they shared contained false info, they replied that it didn't matter because it made Trump look bad.

Unrelated, I no longer use Facebook.

Actually, you don't have to "fact check" everything.

Depending upon what you use it for, eg do you distribute it, or just as and additional info.

In many cases it's also okay to only sanity check things. Especially to invalidate something.

But yes, taking some random post at face value without researching it is naive.

reading all the comments here, i thin i should be happy that my parents did never started to use "the internet"

But some newspaper-like publications and TV programmes are not better

Just the other day I had a lil debate with someone who it then turned out had used ChatGPT for their claim...

masto.ai/@Carnivius/1147766353…

Carnivius (@Carnivius@masto.ai)

Attached: 3 images Arguing facts with someone and then they just happen to mention they use chatgpt as their source of their (proven wrong) claim (it gave them results from 2023 and we're discussing 2024) and ugh, this is what we gotta deal with the…

^Mastodon

sadly true. And kind of anticipated; even in the 1980s, there were issues with people thinking of computers as basically infallible. Both Hackers and The Net even used this tendency to overly trust what’s on a computer as plot points; those were released in 1995, reflecting on tendencies that already existed becoming more problematic as computing became more widely adopted.

@socketwench

Hate to say it, but this has been the case for a long long long time.

This is why I keep saying that schools should have required courses on critical thinking. Multiple times...