Y’all realize if you use AI for research it gives you sources right?

[Anonymous]

It does this automatically in many cases or you can ask it to.

So slamming people for using it is not the flex you think it is.

[Anonymous]

Ok

[Anonymous]

Reminds me how we used to use the footnote research linked on Wikipedia articles as our resources on school papers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reminds me how we used to use the footnote research linked on Wikipedia articles as our resources on school papers.

….no

It links each statement to the source. This is not hard to grasp

[Anonymous]

It tells me every dataset that was pulled to train the model and all the algorithms of the model and every subsequent tweak and upgrade to the model and the findings and deficiencies that led to each tweak and how pervasive any other deficiencies will still remain? Don't get me wrong, I love AI but I know it's a black box wrt source.

[Anonymous]

Not always. Often it hallucinates and makes up sources.

I’m a writer and use AI for 90% of my work, but you still have to be careful and double check everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It does this automatically in many cases or you can ask it to.

So slamming people for using it is not the flex you think it is.

A decade from now, we will all look back to now as the time when everyone stopped believing anything on the internet. We are witnessing the end of credibility. For everything.

[Anonymous]

Which AI and what's the context?

I use it for quasi-legal stuff (advocacy, business) but I make sure to look up citations. Some are legit, some are AI artifacts (aka hallucinations but when you make up the nonexistent thing you see it's not really an hallucination).