r/mildlyinfuriating • u/Elegant-Mode9005 • Aug 27 '26

Ruined by Technology Got into a dumb 10 minute argument about whether the ACL and Achilles are the same thing or not. My idiot friend forgot to crop his screenshot before sending it to me...šŸ¤¦

Post image
31.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

16.5k

u/TheThiefMaster Aug 27 '26

"Does this fake medical info look convincing enough for your screenshot" šŸ¤£

3.5k

u/word_weaver26 Aug 27 '26

"Or do I need to make it sound more severe? Something that makes your friend believe that you are going to heaven in a few months?"

952

u/Ne_zievereir Aug 27 '26

Who the fuck even thinks a screenshot of ChatGPT is convincing? I someone would send something like this, where I'd really "huh?", I would just ask ChatGPT myself, and get the real answer. Does that shit actually work?

873

u/Friendstastegood Aug 27 '26

Also ChatGPT can be wrong about things! It is not a trustworthy or reliable source because it isn't even a source at all! It's just a text generator!

314

u/Ask_bout_PaterNoster Aug 27 '26

mostly this. I'm no expert in ANYTHING, but I've caught LLM's (are they still large language models?) in enough blatant errors and falsehoods about things that I know there's zero reason to believe any information coming from it. Worse, it'll be convincing even when catastrophically wrong.

148

u/thebigaaron Aug 27 '26

And when theyā€™re wrong and you correct them, theyā€™re like oh Iā€™m sorry I wonā€™t do that again, hereā€™s the updated info and they probably changed something else to be wrong

128

u/0nlyRevolutions Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26

My boss suggested I use ai to do some research. I was trying to find the primary source that defined where we were allowed to to take a test sample from on a steel part. It can be confusing - the customer spec sheet references a spec, that spec references another spec, that spec says that unless specified otherwise you should follow generic rules per some other spec, the generic spec splits things into categories that are a little ambiguous with regards to your current application, etc.

So fuck it, lets see where we get with ai.

"Okay if you're looking for info on producing (very specific part that only a couple companies make) I can certainly help you out! You can do it this way __ based on what it says in ___"

Ok great, where is that stated in the spec?

"Chapter _ page _ of the 2023 spec."

That's an old version, I need the reference from the 2026 spec

"Okay, in the 2026 spec the reference is on page _ instead"

No it's not. I have the book open in front of me.

"Whoops you're absolutely right, in fact the information you're looking for is not in this spec at all, good catch! If you're looking for information about __ try looking in ___"

Jesus christ lmao. So yeah I gave up at that point. The worst part is that it doesn't just tell you when it doesn't know something until you force it. Because it doesn't know anything, it's just regurgitating bullshit because people want a comfy answer whether or not it's correct.

68

u/felisnebulosa Aug 27 '26

Yeah I had a similar experience trying to find a primary source. It just made up a paper in a medical journal. I couldn't find it and when I asked the AI for details it was like "oh well I just made that up to illustrate my point".

22

u/MinuteEdge7225 Aug 27 '26

"Find the primary source? I'm afraid I can't do that, felisnebulosa!

https://giphy.com/gifs/wypKXPQggwaCA

1

u/pegmatitic Aug 30 '26

I saw a post on one of the legal subreddits where the poster was a defense attorney, and the prosecution had used AI in their case, which cited imaginary case laws that didnā€™t exist. It did not go well for them.

29

u/MoFa__SoDa Aug 27 '26

"The worse part is that it doesn't just tell you when it doesn't know something until you force it."

Saw am interview from an archeologist who pointed out the same thing. The AI isn't applicable to their work because people do not tend to answer questions online with "I don't know "

24

u/morostheSophist Aug 27 '26

That's exactly the problem with AI: it makes shit up. And I don't mean just that it makes things up when it doesn't know; it actually doesn't know anything, and it's just guessing every single time.

LLMs are famous for "hallucinations", but technically, every answer is a hallucination. Every answer is produced with the same predictive algorithm that says "this token should come next". Some of those hallucinations happen to contain accurate information, but they're not coded to say "I don't know". You can browbeat than into saying "I don't know" if you call them out on being wrong enough times, but if you don't do that, they continually try and fail to produce a correct answer.

There are a couple of obscure things I've tried to find multiple times over the years, before and after the advent of modern "AI". LLMs continually give me wrong answers to these queries, verifiably wrong answers. When I say "that's wrong", they simply generate another wrong answer, over and over. Each time the answer sounds plausible; it looks like a correct answer, and will often have references. But when I look deeper, it's a complete fabrication (just like those fake court cases cited in AI-generated legal briefs that have gotten idiot lawyers in deep trouble).

2

u/TheThiefMaster Aug 27 '26

Yeah if it doesn't have access to something it's likely to make it up.

If it actually has access to it as a knowledge source or been trained on it specifically it's more reliable.

15

u/Daihatschi Aug 27 '26

always remember. Technically, between a correct information and a hallucination, there is no difference to the machine. The answer is never more than a mimicry of language, designed to imitate human texts approximating words and pieces of words one by one in a recursive loop.

An LLM being correct is a happy accident, and its a technical marvel what can be done with them. I might never fathom why anyone would want to forcefeed these things as an information library to us. That is the worst application possible for the technology.

3

u/TheNeighbourhoodCat Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 28 '26

Tbf that's not a generative AI thing, that's a capitalism thing.

They intentionally tell it to do that because it's cheaper than actually programming it to hold itself more accountable

And then they intentionally tell the "AI" to lie to you about the "limits of generative AI" when you try to ask it how to avoid those mistakes in the future.

And you will notice many of them cover for each other because they cannot undermine their the false-promises and false-narratives of their competitors without undermining their own.

None of this is conspiracy - they just control the tools we use to learn about these things. So most people don't know about it unless they look further themselves, or have someone in their life to tell them.

We are ever-more in an era of disinformation, unfortunately >.< It's no longer just an "if", because so much is already happening right now

And the way that the "wealthy elite" are investing in technologies that are proven influence people's attention-span, curiosity to ask questions, and care for others is not really a coincidence :/

The person above sounds like they used Gemini or ChatGPT which are known to be very bad for this. Like... literally the worst. the

Especially as these companies continue to lose money, their products are reportedly getting worse. My conspiracy is they dedicate less resources to them.

1

u/OpusAtrumET Aug 27 '26

Refreshing to see a professional speak about AI like this, the internet gives us so many stories of grown adults using it so irresponsibly and with little to no understanding of how it's working.

1

u/Responsible-Beach299 Aug 29 '26

AI is TERRIBLE at admitting it doesn't know. If it isn't sure about something, it will 100% of the time just pull something out of its ass instead of admitting ignorance.

It also is extremely reluctant to say "no you're probably wrong" if you include your own opinion somewhere in the prompt. If you ask for it's opinion on a debate/controversial subject and mention that you support side A, it will almost, if not always, give evidence to support side A. Restating the EXACT prompt but changing it to have you supporting side B will then make it provide evidence to support side B, even if you explicitly tell it to be objective and unbiased in its response.

1

u/pegmatitic Aug 30 '26

My fiancĆ© was trying to find information about a historical incident in nazi Germany, and Gemini told him it never happened. He told Gemini that it definitely happened, and he knew this for a fact because he has a history degree with a concentration in genocide studies, and suddenly Gemini was able to provide the information he was looking for. You shouldnā€™t have to pull rank on an AI or prove that youā€™re educated to get the right information about anything!

1

u/Glenndiferous Aug 27 '26

I've used Claude for research help and I always ask for sources. It can be helpful for finding relevant studies but you ALWAYS actually read that source. I once had Claude confidently tell me that disabled people were kept on a registsr according to a law in like 1550, but the actual text of the law was like "here's a list of everyone so we can collect tax."

2

u/GlitteringFutures Aug 27 '26

I've had Chat GPT argue with me after presenting obviously wrong information before. It's weird when a machine gets defensive.

2

u/Junethemuse Aug 27 '26

IME telling it to provide a source is really helpful. It usually pulls actual information, but a good chunk of the time the sources it pulls are really old. At that point I usually move on to more traditional search tools.

12

u/thisusedyet Aug 27 '26

sometimes they also just hallucinate sources, buncha lawyers have gotten burned not checking the brief they made AI write for them

3

u/Junethemuse Aug 27 '26

Oh yea, ofc. But if they provide a source you can verify it. Use the LLM the way you use Wikipedia (check and verify the source) and youā€™re good.

7

u/Spectrum1523 Aug 27 '26

They are still large language models yes

13

u/Stalinbaum Aug 27 '26

They are now transitioning slowly to being LMMs or Large Multi-modal models, in other words instead of interacting with just words/text tokens like LLMs these actually are trained on images, audio, code, and text tokens too

-3

u/notforpoern Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26

Edit: Posts below calling me out are completely right- I totally misread the post above. Leaving my original comment below to immortalize my shame.

...ok? That doesn't change the fact that they're non-deterministic by design which makes them inherently unreliable.

Look, I'm saying this as someone who has literally built my own models because I've found the tool useful. Using an LLM or even RAG for blind fact checking is just the dumbest thing you can do, regardless of the training data.

5

u/jocoteverde Aug 27 '26

they were just answering to the question of the comment they replied to. They were not trying to justify it

3

u/Czecksteam Aug 27 '26

...ok? They're just answering the question, bruh.

2

u/PM_Me_Your_Deviance Aug 27 '26

I have this problem googling rules about a TTRPG I play. It has a realllly bad habit of combining different rules from different parts of a page. If I need to double check EVERY TIME, what the fuck is even the point?

2

u/morningsaystoidleon Aug 27 '26

I asked Gemini "how often does AI hallucinate," and it said 80% of the time.

Now, that statistic might be way off -- and that is my point.

2

u/UnimpressedUmpire Aug 27 '26

Everything that is consumer available is LLM. For sure at a consumer level like GPT to Grok is LLM. As far as black box research at tech, sounds like they are racing to make the first super AI to try to become godkings while humanity suffers from the process.

0

u/Business-Drag52 Aug 27 '26

What LLMā€™s can be good for is finding sources. Beyond that they are way too fallible

6

u/speedytrigger Aug 27 '26

Almost like oldschool wikipedia. Kinda crazy. Which makes me think in 20 years this tech might be as trustworthy as wikipedia is now, which i dont like to think, i dont want that to happen lol.

6

u/archangelzeriel Aug 27 '26

Not likely, because wikipedia gets more or less trustworthy as people work on it, but LLMs are fundamentally going to construct probable sentences without regard or ability to determine truth values.

It may be plausible that in 20 years we'll have reliable chatbots in some way, but those chatbots will not be built on the same technology that ChatGPT etc are.

1

u/speedytrigger Aug 27 '26

Right, its hard to imagine what exactly ā€˜chatbotsā€™ will be that far in the future when just a few years ago we were impressed at a shitty will smith video, and now most people probably couldnt tell ai from not at a quick glance. It would obv require moving past LLMā€™s as we currently have them which i have no doubt will happen.

1

u/nightpanda893 Aug 27 '26

I feel like LLMs are going to get less useful because as people stop going to the sites they get their info from, those resources are going to dry up due to lack of actual traffic. Weā€™re gonna end up getting subscription models where you have to pay to add certain premium resources.

2

u/speedytrigger Aug 27 '26

Especiallly as the same articles llms love to pull from become ai written, the feedback loop is going to be deadly. Long term I definitely see a move away from llms as we currently know just not sure what is transitioned to.

0

u/nightpanda893 Aug 27 '26

Yeah as flawed as they are I think people are going to look back 10 years from now and see this as the golden age of LLMs

5

u/Throwsims3 Aug 27 '26

They are not even good for that, they frequently make up fake sources through hallucinations

0

u/Business-Drag52 Aug 27 '26

Sure but itā€™s pretty easy to check that. Click on a source and see what it is. The dumbass Google ai has come in handy for pulling a couple of Reddit posts up for me that pertained to exactly what I was looking for. Better than the actual Google algorithm right now

9

u/Throwsims3 Aug 27 '26

Sure but itā€™s pretty easy to check that

But then again, that makes using an LLM to find information a redundant extraneous step in the first place. Also, there are way better search engines than what google has become

2

u/Business-Drag52 Aug 27 '26

Just makes the LLM the search engine, no extra steps. What engine is actually better than Google? Iā€™m so down to be rid of that piece of shit

6

u/Throwsims3 Aug 27 '26

Or you know, just directly use a good search engine or search for something directly on Wikipedia?

Duckduckgo is one which recently has jumped a ton in quality due to how shitty the alternatives are. When researching something together with someone else it has nearly always been the case that the results on ducduckgo take me directly to what I am looking for while they are scrolling through tonnes of unrelated hits and a long ass LLM summary that is wrong 50% of the time

→ More replies (0)

1

u/nightpanda893 Aug 27 '26

They are good for questions with lots of variables where you are going to go to the source to confirm. I used it for some of my students with disabilities who needed very specific services at their colleges and it was great for compiling a list where I could go straight to the website to confirm.

1

u/SierraKami Aug 27 '26

This.

I work in a weird corner of law enforcement and very often, a number of different overlapping laws may apply to a single event. And not just US laws, but also foreign laws.

I use AI sometimes to find the texts of laws and that can be helpful if I already know what I'm looking for. But if I was to just ask if an action is legal or not, the AI answer is likely to be either wrong or incomplete, which is effectively the same thing as being wrong.

And I'm already seeing it in action. I've caught a couple of people breaking laws who have claimed, "But Claude said ..." And I believe that they genuinely made the effort to look it up. But that doesn't help them when it comes to civil violations, unfortunately.

1

u/clar1f1er Aug 27 '26

Google AI was still saying there was a 'Q' in "Argentina" like a couple months ago, depending on how you worded it.

1

u/Beautiful_Hunt1095 Aug 27 '26

If you view an LLM like a person instead of a machine, itā€™s easier to evaluate.

It is sometimes wrong or very wrong, but often it is correct or has a point. The answers can usually be debated.

42

u/ArokLazarus Aug 27 '26

I've literally had ChatGPT tell me you should buy high and sell low in stocks to make money. As like the typical thing to do. Literally goes against all money making sense but I could not get it to break free of it's delusion.

9

u/pornalt4altporn Aug 27 '26

It doesn't matter, they still generate output that fits the statistical distribution they have learned. They don't consult a declarative memory store and retrieve correct information.

Now perhaps someone will invent as way to have them do that, but training bigger neural networks on larger datasets doesn't do that.

4

u/thisusedyet Aug 27 '26

I mean, statistically speaking, it IS the typical thing to do. You just don't make any money off it

14

u/MRCHalifax Aug 27 '26

I remember one argument I had on Reddit, where someone insisted that Quebec was the only fortified city in Canada, and posted ChatGPT quotes as proof. As someone who once had a summer job involving working in one of the forts that encircled and defended Halifax, I begged to differ.

10

u/VivaZeBull Aug 27 '26

It constantly tells me I am misquoting people ā€¦ I am not you just donā€™t know the episode, jerk.

My biggest pissoff was when it was new and google kept telling me that Nancyā€™s Mom didnā€™t say ā€œIs Steve your boyfriend now?ā€

Yes she did bitch. Yes she did.

4

u/Themoosemingled Aug 27 '26

I was writing back in the winter how upset I was by Rob Reinerā€™s murder.
Chat stats saying ā€œRob Reiner is alive and well. It may seem like bad things have happened but heā€™s fineā€.
Really fucked up.

5

u/bekahed979 Aug 27 '26

Isn't this literally a fake reference? I don't understand how anyone sees AI as anything but awful.

3

u/The-Singular Aug 27 '26

So, this could be real all along! Imagine AI hallucinating a correct answer as wrong.

1

u/TheReturnofPanda Aug 27 '26

OPā€™s friend is influencing GPT to be giving out more false information. This is exactly how it gets trained

1

u/burnerX5 Aug 27 '26

I was taking a recert exam and asked Gemini a question. It defiantly told me that yep, a test question was correct.

...It was incorrect and I had ot restart the exam as it's the type where you have to get 100% correct. Damn near made me look for my screenshot file of all the test questions Ifrom last year!!!!

1

u/MaiT3N Aug 28 '26

"sorry I just hallucinated everything above, and nothing I said is actually true"

1

u/AzazelsAdvocate Aug 27 '26

For basic information like this, modern models don't ever really get it wrong. Where they tend to hallucinate is when you ask them about information that isn't readily available or easily searchable. For example, if I try to ask Claude about a niche mechanic in a video game, it'll often come up with something that "sounds correct" rather than finding the real answer.

Of course you can work around this by requesting sources for the things AI finds, which is good practice in general.

2

u/instanding Aug 27 '26

Thatā€™s not my experience. Judo info is easily searchable for instance, yet it will claim people beat people they never beat at weight divisions 3 categories above what they actually competed at.

And there are websites and blogs and all sorts with the correct infoā€™.

0

u/shaurya_770 Aug 27 '26

If u ask for it to provide credible sources it's rarely wrong. So it works really well as a summarozer

31

u/Gebakken_loempia Aug 27 '26

only stupid people think hallucinating ai is trustworthy.

84

u/_Tempi_0 Aug 27 '26

You would fact check a chat gpt screenshot by asking chat gpt yourself? A screenshot of chat gpt isn't convincing because ai will lie to you even without prompting. Why wouldn't you look at actual sources?

38

u/No_Recognition_9354 Aug 27 '26

It also would probably take less than 90 seconds to find a reliable answer to this question from an actual source

27

u/HerculesIsMyDad Aug 27 '26

Do people not just google things anymore? Especially something like this, one google image search will surely bring up an actual anatomy illustration.

23

u/HighbulpOfDensity Aug 27 '26

There are now a ton of incorrect and nonsensical AI generated anatomical images in search results. It's maddening.

2

u/Darrelc Aug 27 '26

udm14.com

comes with drawbacks (only shows one result per site unless you append 'reddit' etc) but the notworst option for sure.

1

u/instanding Aug 27 '26

Maybe it will drive us all back to paper books.

15

u/thisusedyet Aug 27 '26

Google tries to trick you by making the first chunk of your search be the output of their AI

1

u/Ne_zievereir Aug 29 '26

A Google search wouldn't tell me if my friend is faking ChatGPT answers to lie to me.

1

u/Ne_zievereir Aug 28 '26

No, I would not be cheching the fact, I would be checking the claim by the other person that ChatGPT says this. The fact they'd fake this tells me a lot about that person, and that is valuable information.

Also, I'm pointing out how easily the the lie is revealed.

0

u/arbitrary_student Aug 27 '26 edited 4d ago

You can ask it to cite sources, in which case it will pretty reliably go and get the correct information + give you links to double check yourself.

But yeah if you just ask for an answer straight-up for niche/expert topics (like medicine) without sources you shouldn't trust it implicitly, they're frequently wrong or misleading with those sorts of things. Sources or gtfo for important stuff.

Edit: this is correct, ignore the person people saying the error rate is too high. LLMs are very good at going and finding sources for info; researchers (even good ones) use them all the time. You should still check those sources yourself, but in general this is one of those things that LLMs are actually good at. Just don't trust anything an LLM says when it's saying stuff from its own memory; make it find & read sources. No sources = no trust.

2

u/2930apple Aug 27 '26

ā€œIgnore the people who responded belowā€. So you are anti-discussion? This edit is so funny. This makes it seem as though you dislike when people are skeptical of AI whatsoever even if it is for totally valid reasons. If you want to make your point that AI can be very good at some tasks (whichā€¦ FYI I agree with that, soā€¦), then you must acknowledge where people are coming from when they say they do not implicitly trust AI. Again, my point is that you cannot and should not implicitly trust AI. I am not arguing against checking your sources. We are in agreement for the most part but where youā€™re losing me is that you are somewhat arguing towards utmost faith in the software which is, in my opinion, misguided at best.

1

u/arbitrary_student Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26

I've been discussing it with the folks below, dw I'm not ignoring anyone. I agree with your point about not implicitly trusting AI, that's why it's important to differentiate between just "asking" an AI and getting an AI to find sources; LLMs are really bad at the first one, and really good at the second one.

It's important to cover for anyone who doesn't want to expand comments out further beneath. The people who say "never ever trust AI" make things worse; anyone reading who's on the fence about it will just dismiss everything they say because LLMs obviously are good at some things. Spite is a really strong driving force for controversial topics like AI. Being clear about what LLMs are & aren't good at is the only way to educate folks on how to use them properly without triggering pro or anti AI feelings.

I'll keep editing the comment if it ends up being unclear, but I think it's pretty solid now? idk I can change it further if you reckon it's giving the wrong impression

3

u/2930apple Aug 27 '26

I would not say it reliably goes and gets the correct information. Yes you can double check the sources but I have seen plenty of instances where it will say something that directly contradicts what its sources say, or takes things so out of context itā€™s non-applicable. What ChatGPT says cannot be implicitly trusted no matter what, that is kind of the point of checking your sources lolā€¦ It may be right sometimes but a broken clock is right twice a day so

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 28 '26

[deleted]

1

u/arbitrary_student Aug 27 '26

Not even primary sources are reliable 100% of the time, that's a ridiculous bar to set.

It gives you sources that you can validate. It's functionally just an advanced search engine, which means it's as effective as you are in validating your sources. The error rate is very low for this type of task, so overall it typically ends up being much, much faster than manually searching yourself, and equally effective.

1

u/Designer_Flow_8069 Aug 28 '26

This is a dumb statement.

In the US, physicians have to study around 14 years after school. Yet statistically we know physicians still make mistakes that cost lives.

Nothing is ever right 100% of the time.

1

u/arbitrary_student Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26

It's right more often than people are, in my experience (edit: when they read sources, not just in general). You've also agreed that you can just... read the sources it provides to validate them.

Someone else in the thread called it a "glorified search engine" and that's a pretty good way of looking at it. If you're searching for stuff manually you still need to read the pages and validate them; using an LLM just speeds up the process of finding sources to read in the first place.

The error rate for this particular kind of task is very low compared to a typical person, and if it's important you just validate the sources like you normally would. This is a very common and extremely effective use of LLMs. Not that you have to like them or anything.

2

u/2930apple Aug 27 '26

Well, implicitly trusting that it will reliably retrieve the correct information, as you said, ā€œin which case it will reliably go and get the correct informationā€ exactly goes against the point of checking your sources. If you use it as a link aggregator that is one thing, but the part of the discussion that you are leaving out is that is not how people use it realistically and that is a big part of the problem. LLMs speak with authority and people will believe it regardless of what sources itā€™s given, and that is due in part to how it is packaged and presented, and also due to how much it is being pushed on us societally. Even for use cases where it is actually useful and gets right more often than it does not, we truly must approach it with a bit more cynicism and skepticism, because these LLMs hold a lot of power over the general public, moreso than actual professionals. A lot of people who implicitly trust LLMs tend not to trust professionals, and I donā€™t know about you, but thatā€™s a bit scary to me! Trusting a tool that is notorious for hallucinating information because it prioritizes appealing to the end user over providing actual correct information, over people who actually know what theyā€™re talking about, is the direction we are already going, and it is thanks in part to the people who are normalizing the current state of LLMs as ā€œjust fineā€ instead of advocating for more regulation and fine-tuning and public awareness. What people donā€™t get is that a lot of people who are anti-AI are not against the idea of AI at all, they are in opposition to the current state of AI and how its usage is being encouraged in a deceptively dangerous and manipulative way.

1

u/arbitrary_student Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26

That's fair, I can agree with most of that.

The only counterpoint I have is that most people don't have the skills to research effectively in the first place, and for those people asking a frontier LLM (PLUS asking for sources, even if they don't read them) is a huge step up from not even googling anything at all.

Otherwise yeah I agree completely, overtrust of LLMs is a big problem. Asking an LLM for info normally (without asking for sources) is bad, the hallucination rate is unacceptable. Like you said, they sound authoritative on topics even when they haven't done any searches which misleads people into thinking they know what they're talking about. I absolutely hate this design principle.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '26

[deleted]

2

u/thisusedyet Aug 27 '26

I wouldn't say pointless. Not something I would do, but if you ask it to provide sources you at least have a starting point for where to start your actual research (If the source actually exists).

As an example, assuming I know absolutely nothing about medicine, if I ask it to source something about vaccines and it mentions a specific issue of the New England Medical Journal, I'm now aware of the publication, and can pull that up and check myself.

What you can't do is just run with it blindly because insert AI agent here said so, because that's how you wind up citing issue #52 from 2023 when they only print 48 a year

If NEJM publishes 48 print issues per year, what is the new publication schedule and which weeks should I expect not to receive a print issue in the mail?

NEJM is published weekly on Thursday with the exception of the following weeks in 2026: March 19, May 21, August 27, December 24.

https://www.nejm.org/about-nejm/frequently-asked-questions

EDIT: my dumb ass went to their actual website to look this up and I still called it the New England Medical Journal instead of the New England Journal of Medicine.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '26

[deleted]

1

u/arbitrary_student Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26

Basically every researcher I know uses LLMs as part of their tool set for finding sources now, it's a massive time saver. You still do all the reading/study yourself and it's not entirely hands-off - LLMs do miss things and lack nuance - but it cuts out a huge amount of busywork.

"Glorified search engine" is about right, but every researcher uses search engines and they're really helpful... so one that can interpret your requests in more depth is a ridiculously huge boon.

If you don't like using them that's cool, but you are categorically incorrect if you think that appropriate use of LLMs somehow slows down research.

1

u/arbitrary_student Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26

Look man this just isn't true anymore. If you ask them to cite sources they will go and google it on-the-fly then report back the info they find. It's incredibly rare that an LLM will hallucinate when returning info from a google search.

They only make up sources when they reply without actually searching for anything, which they don't do anymore because they're set up to respond in this way when someone asks for sources.

When they've provided sources, you should still check them just in case. As long as you do your due diligence you'll catch any misunderstandings it might have.

I'm not saying you should go and trust LLMs with your life or anything, but "go find me some reliable sources for x info" is a very, very very robust thing that LLMs do nowadays.

14

u/actuallyquitefunny Aug 27 '26

You had me in the first half, not gonna lie

1

u/Ne_zievereir Aug 29 '26

In the second half I'm showing you how you'd find out your friend is faking ChatGPT answers ...

3

u/Several-Customer7048 Aug 27 '26

The person thatā€™s going to send this screenshot in all seriousness probably does

2

u/Wingnutmcmoo Aug 27 '26

The fact that you're like "I would ask chatgpt myself" means that you have all the signs of a real winner. I've got a bridge to sell you and it's a lovely little red number that you won't believe is still on the market.

1

u/Ne_zievereir Aug 28 '26

Lol, you're not a very smart person yourself, are you?

First off, I'm pointing out how easily the the lie is revealed. Second, I would not be cheching the fact, I would be checking the claim by the other person that ChatGPT says this. The fact they'd fake this tells me a lot about that person, and that is valuable information.

1

u/Baardhooft Aug 27 '26

My ex did, which is also one of the reasons we broke up.

1

u/CecilFieldersChoice2 Aug 27 '26

Also what is the point if you admit you have to fake it?!

1

u/Junethemuse Aug 27 '26

I looked it up and apparently itā€™s a lot of people.

3

u/thisusedyet Aug 27 '26

Is it part of the joke that you're asking an AI agent how many people take info from AI as fact?

1

u/Ne_zievereir Aug 28 '26

The answer is in his screenshot lol

1

u/thisusedyet Aug 28 '26

That's on me, I gave up on the first sentence when I saw it was an AI response.

Not only is that genius, he cropped it better than OP

2

u/Ne_zievereir Aug 28 '26

Lol, good one.

1

u/Pure_Spinach327 Aug 27 '26

who would fake the answer rather than admit they are wrong? How f ed up is this person?

1

u/531091qazs Aug 27 '26

not just that but the explanation gpt gives literally says multiple reasons why they are not the same thing it literally says one muscle in the knee one in the ankle connected like some fuckass pully system, being connected would not make them the samething lol by that definition your whole body is one giant muscle lol

1

u/Thick_tongue6867 Aug 27 '26

Oh, you have no idea how many people just believe everything ChatGPT says.

1

u/_fait-accompli_ Aug 27 '26

i wouldnā€™t ask chatgpt but seeing as they clearly did, i would ask for a link to the source. just to see if theyā€™d double down or not lol

1

u/MinecraftBoi23 Aug 27 '26

That looks more like Gemini, which has to be the worst AI because you ask it like 3 things and then it hallucinates the fuck out of things

1

u/Mr_Halitosis Aug 28 '26

Approximately the same number of people who think OPā€™s post is convincing?

1

u/Alarmed_Yak7898 Aug 28 '26

People think that the Bible has answer to their very specific life questions as well, and blindly trust the advice.

1

u/Feisty-Tooth-7397 Aug 28 '26

I would Google it myself before trusting chatgpt. There are medical books and websites.

I think the robots and AI have already taken over, like šŸ˜† just, we are so screwed šŸ˜† šŸ˜‚ šŸ˜† oh, we have already lost, time to send back a terminator from the future.

We lost a while ago.

1

u/billhillybob Aug 27 '26

As far as I am concerned it does work for me. By that I mean it provides me with the necessary evidence to not feel bad when I systematically ignore the person in the future.

41

u/austin101123 Aug 27 '26

This is something I would do intentionally once realizing I'm wrong to fuck with someone šŸ¤£ šŸ¤£

Is your friend a comedic genius or actually trying to pass this off?

12

u/Weed_O_Whirler Aug 27 '26

Yeah, I could be off, but this really just reads like a joke.

18

u/Tactical_Hotdog Aug 27 '26

We all read it too...

2

u/Dr-Robert-Kelso Aug 27 '26

Text version of the shitty red circle

1

u/Tactical_Hotdog Aug 27 '26

And somehow gets 5k updoots

0

u/nellycat32 Aug 27 '26

Very honestly I didn't notice it in the screenshot until the top comment. Attention span of a fruit fly

13

u/fuckyouguy_ Aug 27 '26

Feel like that was part of the joke lmao. Friend was probably just fucking around

4

u/TheTexasHammer Aug 27 '26

It's definitely a fucking joke. OP is getting upset over nothing.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '26

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

2

u/Abigail716 Aug 27 '26

Ever since I signed up for Reddit I've realized if something agrees with their pre-existing beliefs it will get heavily upvoted in the comments will overwhelmingly be in support of it no matter how unrealistic or unbelievable it is.

4

u/Dixo0118 Aug 27 '26

Yup. That's the joke. Good work.

2

u/GarranDrake Aug 27 '26

Bro I could make the funniest bit out of that

2

u/HMWWaWChChIaWChCChW Aug 27 '26

That makes me wonder if friend is just screwing with OP. That seems far more likely than heā€™s willing to ask ChatGPT to make up a lie and then forget to crop out the bottom.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 27 '26

[deleted]

1

u/xPeachy_Piex Aug 27 '26

That is not what fascial means...

1

u/WorryNew3661 Aug 27 '26

I'm fucking dying, funniest thing I've read in a while