[hodgesrm]

> Two main risks arise... First, the abundance of fabricated “studies” seeping into all areas of the research infrastructure... A second risk lies in the increased possibility that convincingly scientific-looking content was in fact deceitfully created with AI tools...

A third risk: ChatGPT has no understanding of "truth" in the sense of facts reported by established, trusted sources. I'm doing a research project related to use of data lakes and tried using ChatGPT to search for original sources. It's a shitshow of fabricated links and pedestrian summaries of marketing materials.

This feels like an evolutionary dead end.

[kenjackson]

It sounds like your use of AI is one of the worst uses. Standard semantic search would be much better and appropriate.

[passion__desire]

Existence of LLMs make Google search even more relevant for cross-checking rather than less relevant for deep research. Daniel Dennett said we should have all levels of searches available for everyone i.e. from basic string matching to semantic matching. [0]

[0] https://youtu.be/arEvPIhOLyQ?t=1139

[hodgesrm]

No disagreement with that. My expectations were not high--but I was still surprised how bad it was. There are absolutely no guardrails.

[nis0s]

If summarization and analysis isn’t the main use of AI, then what is?

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

How do you run a semantic search

[viraptor]

> tried using ChatGPT to search for original sources

That's a bad idea, do not do that. Regardless of the the knowledge contained in ChatGPT, it's a completely wrong tool/tech - like using a jackhammer as a screwdriver. If your want original sources, then services like https://perplexity.ai can do it. It's not even an issue with ChatGPT as such, it was never intended for that - that's why they're trying to create search as well https://openai.com/index/searchgpt-prototype/

[hodgesrm]

Perplexity.ai looks a lot better. Thanks for the link.

(edited: typo)