This is honestly kinda scary to read. You want an intransparent software that can by definition not think to try and check what facts are correct instead of doing it yourself? And that’s if we’re assuming there’s no intentional fact skewing in the software.
So you also never use google for instance or do you first compare the results of google, DuckDuckGo, ecosia,… before actually open a page? Interesting, i wonder how long it takes before you find something on the web.
So you don’t use any search engine at all i understand. For instance, are you confident that google is fully transparent and gives you only checked facts? No intentional skewing towards favouring websites that pay for a high ranking?
Maybe the difference between me and you is that i always check the facts …for example where they come from. If the answer is given by a human or machine makes no difference for me. The machine though gives me the links where it derived the information from… not many humans do that.
So you either crawl back in fear fuelled by a lack of understanding or you embrace new tools when they come and learn how to work with them, what can be trusted and not, what improvements can be made. 🤷🏼
Imma ignore your blatant rudeness and strawman based ad hominems in the above comment for a sec
So, if you’re going to check each of those sources, what’s the advantage of those over using searx? Basically, if you’re going to do your due diligence, you’re not even going to have to look at the generated summary at all. Searx has the additional advantage of being open source, so you can go check how it does what it does. That’s impossible to do with AI by its very definition- even the devs can’t know why it does what it does.
This is honestly kinda scary to read. You want an intransparent software that can by definition not think to try and check what facts are correct instead of doing it yourself? And that’s if we’re assuming there’s no intentional fact skewing in the software.
It is certainly the most convenient interface, and that’s what makes it enticing.
I don’t think I’ll ever trust one source enough to use it like that, though.
So you also never use google for instance or do you first compare the results of google, DuckDuckGo, ecosia,… before actually open a page? Interesting, i wonder how long it takes before you find something on the web.
Where did i say i want intransparent software that can by definition not think to try and check what facts are correct instead of doing it yourself?
Thats unfortunately the only way to get what you say you want. Unless you’re paying a human to do the web searching for you.
So you don’t use any search engine at all i understand. For instance, are you confident that google is fully transparent and gives you only checked facts? No intentional skewing towards favouring websites that pay for a high ranking?
Maybe the difference between me and you is that i always check the facts …for example where they come from. If the answer is given by a human or machine makes no difference for me. The machine though gives me the links where it derived the information from… not many humans do that.
So you either crawl back in fear fuelled by a lack of understanding or you embrace new tools when they come and learn how to work with them, what can be trusted and not, what improvements can be made. 🤷🏼
Example:
I get an answer AND a list where the answer is based on. Personally, i don’t understand your issue at all.
Imma ignore your blatant rudeness and strawman based ad hominems in the above comment for a sec
So, if you’re going to check each of those sources, what’s the advantage of those over using searx? Basically, if you’re going to do your due diligence, you’re not even going to have to look at the generated summary at all. Searx has the additional advantage of being open source, so you can go check how it does what it does. That’s impossible to do with AI by its very definition- even the devs can’t know why it does what it does.
Just responding to you with examples. The rudeness is yours.