https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily-willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily-
willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about
people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their
satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with
known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about
people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their
satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with
known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
˙Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists.
But the problem is working out what is ignorant shit and what isnt
Usually˙˙ there are several, you can read and assess the
sourcematerial, instead˙˙ of just getting a summary usually without
attribution
Any decent AI probides the sources
On 5/04/2026 8:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily-
willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about
people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their
satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with
known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists. Usually
there are several, you can read and assess the source material,
instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about
people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their
satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with
known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
?Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists.
But the problem is working out what is ignorant shit and what isnt
Usually?? there are several, you can read and assess the
sourcematerial, instead?? of just getting a summary usually without
attribution
Any decent AI provides the sources
keithr0 wrote:
On 5/04/2026 8:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about
people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their
satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with
known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists. Usually
there are several, you can read and assess the source material,
instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
Google AI gives the sources
Rod Speed wrote:
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about
people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their
satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with
known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists.
But the problem is working out what is ignorant shit and what isnt
and AI does that to a large extent
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-
scarily- willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
˙Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists.
But the problem is working out what is ignorant shit and what isnt
and AI does that to a large extent
Yep, and is a lot less effort than doing that yourself,
Usually˙˙ there are several, you can read and assess the
sourcematerial, instead˙˙ of just getting a summary usually without
attribution
Any decent AI provides the sources
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists. Usually
there are several, you can read and assess the source material,
instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
Google AI gives the sources
I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources
Depends on how you invoke it, it does with Gemini
and told˙˙ me a pack of (changing) lies
You did nothing of the sort
wrapped up in convincing waffle.
You did nothing of the sort
In˙˙ fact comparing with web search results it was pretty obvious some
of the info had come from Wikipedia pages that no human would have
considered relevent, and not showing sources served to hide that.
It does show sources when you invoke it properly
You didn't respond to me then, and now I see you just ignored me
because the information didn't come from one of your Artificial
Idiots.
More of your mindless bullshit
You are presenting yourself as prime example of someone
"willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs".
More of your mindless bullshit
And you do precisely that with google searches
Axel <none@not.here> wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:Yet you keep posting where it just waffles BS instead. Petzl's
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wroteand AI does that to a large extent
Rod Speed wroteBut the problem is working out what is ignorant shit and what isnt
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wroteGoogle simply points you to places where information exists.
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wroteJust like you do with google
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
didn't even figure out where the data in the article he was asking
it to verify had come from (and somehow he still seemed to think it
was useful). What you're doing is exactly what the article is
talking about - deferring to a false authority rather than deciding
for yourself.
In fact the AI's responses are no more authoritative
than the authors of random webpages,
but it tries to tell you what
you want to hear,
which appears to be all you really care about
(and definitely all that Rod Speed cares about).
Axel <none@not.here> wrote:
keithr0 wrote:I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources and told
On 5/04/2026 8:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:Google AI gives the sources
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wroteGoogle simply points you to places where information exists. Usually
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wroteJust like you do with google
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about
people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their
satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with
known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
there are several, you can read and assess the source material,
instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
me a pack of (changing) lies wrapped up in convincing waffle. In
fact comparing with web search results it was pretty obvious some
of the info had come from Wikipedia pages that no human would have
considered relevent, and not showing sources served to hide that.
You didn't respond to me then, and now I see you just ignored me
because the information didn't come from one of your Artificial
Idiots. You are presenting yourself as prime example of someone
"willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs".
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists. Usually
there are several, you can read and assess the source material,
instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
Google AI gives the sources
I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources
Depends on how you invoke it, it does with Gemini
and told?? me a pack of (changing) lies
You did nothing of the sort
wrapped up in convincing waffle.
You did nothing of the sort
In?? fact comparing with web search results it was pretty obvious some
of the info had come from Wikipedia pages that no human would have
considered relevent, and not showing sources served to hide that.
It does show sources when you invoke it properly
You didn't respond to me then, and now I see you just ignored me
because the information didn't come from one of your Artificial
Idiots.
More of your mindless bullshit
You are presenting yourself as prime example of someone
"willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs".
More of your mindless bullshit
And you do precisely that with google searches
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Axel <none@not.here> wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:Yet you keep posting where it just waffles BS instead. Petzl's
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wroteand AI does that to a large extent
Rod Speed wroteBut the problem is working out what is ignorant shit and what isnt
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wroteGoogle simply points you to places where information exists.
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power. >>>>>> ˙ Just like you do with google
didn't even figure out where the data in the article he was asking
it to verify had come from (and somehow he still seemed to think it
was useful). What you're doing is exactly what the article is
talking about - deferring to a false authority rather than deciding
for yourself.
if I can get an answer in seconds to question I want or need answered, I consider that far preferable to endless googling to try to find the
answer myself. If I have any doubt about the veracity of the AI answer,
I can always check for myself.
˙ In fact the AI's responses are no more authoritative
than the authors of random webpages,
AI answers are more authoritative than those from authors of random
webpages since they're based on the research the AI does to answer the query.˙ answers from 'random webpages' rely on the knowledge, and/or
depth of research, of the author and their honesty, and lack of agenda
or bias.
˙ but it tries to tell you what
you want to hear,
no it doesn't. it will tell you if what you're saying is wrong, or if something is true or not. I find it a very useful and time saving tool
to answer simple questions. many questions just need confirmation or
denial, a yes or no answer, or simply stating some fact. however, no
doubt the accuracy of answers would probably depend on the complexity of
the question.
which appears to be all you really care about
no I want a truthful answer
(and definitely all that Rod Speed cares about).
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users- >>>>>>>>> scarily-
willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to >>>>>>>> offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and >>>>>>>> religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs >>>>>>>> have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists. Usually >>>>>> there are several, you can read and assess the source material,
instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
Google AI gives the sources
I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources
˙Depends on how you invoke it, it does with Gemini
and told˙˙ me a pack of (changing) lies
˙You did nothing of the sort
wrapped up in convincing waffle.
˙You did nothing of the sort
In fact comparing with web search results it was pretty obvious some˙It does show sources when you invoke it properly
of the info had come from Wikipedia pages that no human would have
considered relevent, and not showing sources served to hide that.
You didn't respond to me then, and now I see you just ignored me
because the information didn't come from one of your Artificial
Idiots.
˙More of your mindless bullshit
You are presenting yourself as prime example of someone
"willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs".
˙More of your mindless bullshit
˙And you do precisely that with google searches
Completely different,
But still "willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs"
Google search, just gives pointersto where the˙˙ information may be.
That's bullshit too when you have already decided
that wikipedia is a good efficient source of data on
lots of thing except for data on people who aren't
considered important enough to have their own page
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Axel <none@not.here> wrote:
keithr0 wrote:I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources and told
On 5/04/2026 8:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:Google AI gives the sources
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wroteGoogle simply points you to places where information exists. Usually
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wroteJust like you do with google
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
there are several, you can read and assess the source material,
instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
me a pack of (changing) lies wrapped up in convincing waffle. In
fact comparing with web search results it was pretty obvious some
of the info had come from Wikipedia pages that no human would have
considered relevent, and not showing sources served to hide that.
You didn't respond to me then, and now I see you just ignored me
because the information didn't come from one of your Artificial
Idiots. You are presenting yourself as prime example of someone
"willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs".
I don't know what I did or didn't do. I can't remember. anyhow, bottom
line, I'm not interested in arguing about AI. you don't want to use it that's fine, that's your choice.
On 6/04/2026 10:32 am, Axel wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Axel <none@not.here> wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:Yet you keep posting where it just waffles BS instead. Petzl's
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wroteand AI does that to a large extent
Rod Speed wroteBut the problem is working out what is ignorant shit and what isnt
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wroteGoogle simply points you to places where information exists.
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>>>>>Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to >>>>>>>> offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and >>>>>>>> religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs >>>>>>>> have all the potential to join those as a new major social power. >>>>>>> ˙ Just like you do with google
willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
didn't even figure out where the data in the article he was asking
it to verify had come from (and somehow he still seemed to think it
was useful). What you're doing is exactly what the article is
talking about - deferring to a false authority rather than deciding
for yourself.
if I can get an answer in seconds to question I want or need
answered, I consider that far preferable to endless googling to try
to find the answer myself. If I have any doubt about the veracity of
the AI answer, I can always check for myself.
˙ In fact the AI's responses are no more authoritative
than the authors of random webpages,
AI answers are more authoritative than those from authors of random
webpages since they're based on the research the AI does to answer
the query.˙ answers from 'random webpages' rely on the knowledge,
and/or depth of research, of the author and their honesty, and lack
of agenda or bias.
Where do you think that "AI" gets it's answers from? Clue - random
webpages
˙ but it tries to tell you what
you want to hear,
no it doesn't. it will tell you if what you're saying is wrong, or if
something is true or not. I find it a very useful and time saving
tool to answer simple questions. many questions just need
confirmation or denial, a yes or no answer, or simply stating some
fact. however, no doubt the accuracy of answers would probably depend
on the complexity of the question.
which appears to be all you really care about
no I want a truthful answer
(and definitely all that Rod Speed cares about).
On 6/04/2026 10:52 am, Axel wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:Cognitive surrender in action.
Axel <none@not.here> wrote:
keithr0 wrote:I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources and told
On 5/04/2026 8:59 am, Rod Speed wrote:Google AI gives the sources
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wroteGoogle simply points you to places where information exists. Usually >>>>> there are several, you can read and assess the source material,
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>>>>Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power. >>>>>> Just like you do with google
instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
me a pack of (changing) lies wrapped up in convincing waffle. In
fact comparing with web search results it was pretty obvious some
of the info had come from Wikipedia pages that no human would have
considered relevent, and not showing sources served to hide that.
You didn't respond to me then, and now I see you just ignored me
because the information didn't come from one of your Artificial
Idiots. You are presenting yourself as prime example of someone
"willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs".
I don't know what I did or didn't do. I can't remember. anyhow,
bottom line, I'm not interested in arguing about AI. you don't want
to use it that's fine, that's your choice.
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Axel wrote
Computer Nerd Kev wrote
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users- >>>>>>>>> scarily-
willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to >>>>>>>> offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and >>>>>>>> religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs >>>>>>>> have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists. Usually >>>>>> there are several, you can read and assess the source material,
instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
Google AI gives the sources
I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources and told
me a pack of (changing) lies wrapped up in convincing waffle. In
fact comparing with web search results it was pretty obvious some
of the info had come from Wikipedia pages that no human would have
considered relevent, and not showing sources served to hide that.
You didn't respond to me then, and now I see you just ignored me
because the information didn't come from one of your Artificial
Idiots. You are presenting yourself as prime example of someone
"willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs".
I don't know what I did or didn't do. I can't remember. anyhow,
bottom line, I'm not interested in arguing about AI. you don't want
to use it that's fine, that's your choice.
Cognitive surrender in action.
More of your mindless bullshit
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users- >>>>>>>>>>> scarily-willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories >>>>>>>>>> about
people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed >>>>>>>>>> their
satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to >>>>>>>>>> offload often important decisions to some perceived authority >>>>>>>>>> with
known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and >>>>>>>>>> religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs >>>>>>>>>> have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists.
Usually
there are several, you can read and assess the source material, >>>>>>>> instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
Google AI gives the sources
I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources
˙Depends on how you invoke it, it does with Gemini
and told me a pack of (changing) lies
You did nothing of the sort
wrapped up in convincing waffle.
You did nothing of the sort
In fact comparing with web search results it was pretty obvious some >>>>>> of the info had come from Wikipedia pages that no human would have >>>>>> considered relevent, and not showing sources served to hide that.˙It does show sources when you invoke it properly
You didn't respond to me then, and now I see you just ignored me
because the information didn't come from one of your Artificial
Idiots.
˙More of your mindless bullshit
You are presenting yourself as prime example of someone
"willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs".
˙More of your mindless bullshit
˙And you do precisely that with google searches
Completely different,
˙But still "willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs"
Google search, just gives pointersto where the˙˙ information may be.
That's bullshit too when you have already decided
that wikipedia is a good efficient source of data on
lots of thing except for data on people who aren't
considered important enough to have their own page
You may think that, I don't.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
what a terminal fuckwit you have always been
keithr0 wrote:
On 6/04/2026 10:32 am, Axel wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Axel <none@not.here> wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:Yet you keep posting where it just waffles BS instead. Petzl's
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wroteand AI does that to a large extent
Rod Speed wroteBut the problem is working out what is ignorant shit and what isnt
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wroteGoogle simply points you to places where information exists.
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users- >>>>>>>>>> scarily-Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to >>>>>>>>> offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and >>>>>>>>> religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs >>>>>>>>> have all the potential to join those as a new major social power. >>>>>>>> ˙ Just like you do with google
willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
didn't even figure out where the data in the article he was asking
it to verify had come from (and somehow he still seemed to think it
was useful). What you're doing is exactly what the article is
talking about - deferring to a false authority rather than deciding
for yourself.
if I can get an answer in seconds to question I want or need
answered, I consider that far preferable to endless googling to try
to find the answer myself. If I have any doubt about the veracity of
the AI answer, I can always check for myself.
˙ In fact the AI's responses are no more authoritative
than the authors of random webpages,
AI answers are more authoritative than those from authors of random
webpages since they're based on the research the AI does to answer
the query.˙ answers from 'random webpages' rely on the knowledge,
and/or depth of research, of the author and their honesty, and lack
of agenda or bias.
Where do you think that "AI" gets it's answers from? Clue - random
webpages
yes but not just one. it creates it's response from multiple sources, so
it needs to find many websites saying the same thing to know it's giving
the right answer.
˙ but it tries to tell you what
you want to hear,
no it doesn't. it will tell you if what you're saying is wrong, or if
something is true or not. I find it a very useful and time saving
tool to answer simple questions. many questions just need
confirmation or denial, a yes or no answer, or simply stating some
fact. however, no doubt the accuracy of answers would probably depend
on the complexity of the question.
which appears to be all you really care about
no I want a truthful answer
(and definitely all that Rod Speed cares about).
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists.
But the problem is working out what is ignorant shit and what isnt
and AI does that to a large extent
Yet you keep posting where it just waffles BS instead.
You are lying about what the AI he quoted actually supplied
It accurately addressed the question it was asked
Petzl's didn't even figure out where the data in the article he was
asking
it to verify had come from (and somehow he still seemed to think it
was useful).
It was useful because it addressed the question
asked and it was obvious that the data came from
the operations that it said were doing what it said
they were doing with respect to linux and you never
provided any sources for what you said they had
been doing all along and you lied about the systems
that they had actually been doing that with
What you're doing is exactly what the article is
talking about - deferring to a false authority rather than deciding
for yourself.
You are doing that yourself with google
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Axel <none@not.here> wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:Yet you keep posting where it just waffles BS instead. Petzl's
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wroteand AI does that to a large extent
Rod Speed wroteBut the problem is working out what is ignorant shit and what isnt
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wroteGoogle simply points you to places where information exists.
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power. >>>>>> Just like you do with google
didn't even figure out where the data in the article he was asking
it to verify had come from (and somehow he still seemed to think it
was useful). What you're doing is exactly what the article is
talking about - deferring to a false authority rather than deciding
for yourself.
if I can get an answer in seconds to question I want or need answered, I consider that far preferable to endless googling to try to find the
answer myself. If I have any doubt about the veracity of the AI answer,
I can always check for myself.
In fact the AI's responses are no more authoritative
than the authors of random webpages,
AI answers are more authoritative than those from authors of random
webpages since they're based on the research the AI does to answer the query.
answers from 'random webpages' rely on the knowledge, and/or
depth of research, of the author and their honesty, and lack of agenda
or bias.
but it tries to tell you what
you want to hear,
no it doesn't. it will tell you if what you're saying is wrong, or if something is true or not.
I find it a very useful and time saving tool
to answer simple questions. many questions just need confirmation or
denial, a yes or no answer, or simply stating some fact.
however, no
doubt the accuracy of answers would probably depend on the complexity of
the question.
which appears to be all you really care about
no I want a truthful answer
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to
offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and
religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs
have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists. Usually
there are several, you can read and assess the source material,
instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
Google AI gives the sources
I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources
Depends on how you invoke it, it does with Gemini
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Axel wrote
keithr0 wrote
Axel wrote
Computer Nerd Kev wrote
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users- >>>>>>>>>>>> scarily-willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories >>>>>>>>>>> about
people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed >>>>>>>>>>> their
satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to >>>>>>>>>>> offload often important decisions to some perceived authority >>>>>>>>>>> with
known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and >>>>>>>>>>> religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs >>>>>>>>>>> have all the potential to join those as a new major social >>>>>>>>>>> power.
˙ Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists.But the problem is working out what is ignorant shit and what isnt >>>>>>> and AI does that to a large extent
Yet you keep posting where it just waffles BS instead. Petzl's
didn't even figure out where the data in the article he was asking >>>>>> it to verify had come from (and somehow he still seemed to think it >>>>>> was useful). What you're doing is exactly what the article is
talking about - deferring to a false authority rather than deciding >>>>>> for yourself.
if I can get an answer in seconds to question I want or need
answered, I consider that far preferable to endless googling to try >>>>> to find the answer myself. If I have any doubt about the veracity
of the AI answer, I can always check for myself.
In fact the AI's responses are no more authoritative
than the authors of random webpages,
AI answers are more authoritative than those from authors of random >>>>> webpages since they're based on the research the AI does to answer
the query.˙ answers from 'random webpages' rely on the knowledge,
and/or depth of research, of the author and their honesty, and lack >>>>> of agenda or bias.
Where do you think that "AI" gets it's answers from? Clue - random
webpages
˙yes but not just one. it creates it's response from multiple
sources, so it needs to find many websites saying the same thing to
know it's giving the right answer.
you really think so?
We really know so
No way to get accurate answers any other way
but it tries to tell you what
you want to hear,
no it doesn't. it will tell you if what you're saying is wrong, or
if something is true or not. I find it a very useful and time
saving tool to answer simple questions. many questions just need
confirmation or denial, a yes or no answer, or simply stating some
fact. however, no doubt the accuracy of answers would probably
depend on the complexity of the question.
which appears to be all you really care about
no I want a truthful answer
(and definitely all that Rod Speed cares about).
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users- >>>>>>>>>>>>> scarily-willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories >>>>>>>>>>>> about
people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed >>>>>>>>>>>> their
satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to >>>>>>>>>>>> offload often important decisions to some perceived
authority with
known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and >>>>>>>>>>>> religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs >>>>>>>>>>>> have all the potential to join those as a new major social >>>>>>>>>>>> power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists. >>>>>>>>>> Usually
there are several, you can read and assess the source material, >>>>>>>>>> instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
Google AI gives the sources
I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources
˙Depends on how you invoke it, it does with Gemini
and told me a pack of (changing) lies
You did nothing of the sort
wrapped up in convincing waffle.
You did nothing of the sort
In fact comparing with web search results it was pretty obvious >>>>>>>> some
of the info had come from Wikipedia pages that no human would have >>>>>>>> considered relevent, and not showing sources served to hide that.
˙It does show sources when you invoke it properly
You didn't respond to me then, and now I see you just ignored me >>>>>>>> because the information didn't come from one of your Artificial >>>>>>>> Idiots.
˙More of your mindless bullshit
You are presenting yourself as prime example of someone
"willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs".
˙More of your mindless bullshit
˙And you do precisely that with google searches
Completely different,
˙But still "willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs"
Google search, just gives pointersto where the˙˙ information may be.
That's bullshit too when you have already decided
that wikipedia is a good efficient source of data on
lots of thing except for data on people who aren't
considered important enough to have their own page
You may think that, I don't.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
what a terminal fuckwit you have always been
No answer then roddles.
More of your mindless bullshit, fuckwit pom
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
Axel wrote
Computer Nerd Kev wrote
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users- >>>>>>>>>>> scarily-willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories >>>>>>>>>> about
people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed >>>>>>>>>> their
satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to >>>>>>>>>> offload often important decisions to some perceived authority >>>>>>>>>> with
known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and >>>>>>>>>> religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs >>>>>>>>>> have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists.
Usually
there are several, you can read and assess the source material, >>>>>>>> instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
Google AI gives the sources
I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources and told
me a pack of (changing) lies wrapped up in convincing waffle. In
fact comparing with web search results it was pretty obvious some
of the info had come from Wikipedia pages that no human would have >>>>>> considered relevent, and not showing sources served to hide that.
You didn't respond to me then, and now I see you just ignored me
because the information didn't come from one of your Artificial
Idiots. You are presenting yourself as prime example of someone
"willing to surrender their cognition to LLMs".
I don't know what I did or didn't do. I can't remember. anyhow,
bottom line, I'm not interested in arguing about AI. you don't want >>>>> to use it that's fine, that's your choice.
Cognitive surrender in action.
˙More of your mindless bullshit
Wot a pair of true believers.
Wota terminal fuckwit pom
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories about >>>>>>>> people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed their >>>>>>>> satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to >>>>>>>> offload often important decisions to some perceived authority with >>>>>>>> known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and >>>>>>>> religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs >>>>>>>> have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists. Usually >>>>>> there are several, you can read and assess the source material,
instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
Google AI gives the sources
I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources
Depends on how you invoke it, it does with Gemini
Nope
Yep
https://g.co/gemini/share/0d063966763e
Gemini gave me lots of sources for paintings after
misinterpreting my question about "Winter Landscape" by Josef Jahn,
as I posted here earlier.
No you didnt
Then when I followed up with more
specific questions noting "Winter Landscape" was a tracker module
its answers didn't include any sources anymore
So you lied about no sources
and it started making things up.
More of your lies
**Technical Note:** In the tracking community, Josef Jahn is alsorecognized for his contributions beyond music, including his work
Doing a web search with the same prompt brought
up irrelevent Wikipedia pages which it was clearly pulling info
from.
So a google search would have failed too
Wikipedia isn't a highly trustworthy source
Have fun listing anything that is
even when the pages are_ relevent,
More of your mindless bullshit
but clearly its content is weighted highly by the AI algorithm.
Its actually weighted by who modifys the page
As I pointed out before, a specific search at The Mod Archive
brought up the correct information easily, so it was out there on
the web. Also on the artist's dead website in the Internet Archive.
But if you trusted Gemini you'd believe its lies instead of finding
the true info yourself.
You don't have to trust, you are free to check the sources it provides,
just like with a google search, but with far less farting around
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
Axel <none@not.here> wrote
keithr0 wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote
keithr0 <me@bugger.off.com.au> wrote
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/04/research-finds-ai-users-scarily- >>>>>>>>>>> willing-to-surrender-their-cognition-to-llms/
Not surprising at all. It's much the same as all the stories >>>>>>>>>> about
people getting stuck somewhere because they blindly followed >>>>>>>>>> their
satnav. I'm frequently bewildered by how willing people are to >>>>>>>>>> offload often important decisions to some perceived authority >>>>>>>>>> with
known failings or ulterior motives, but of course politics and >>>>>>>>>> religion are based on exactly that common willingness. Such AIs >>>>>>>>>> have all the potential to join those as a new major social power.
Just like you do with google
Google simply points you to places where information exists. >>>>>>>> Usually
there are several, you can read and assess the source material, >>>>>>>> instead of just getting a summary usually without attribution
Google AI gives the sources
I already showed you where it didn't give me any sources
Depends on how you invoke it, it does with Gemini
Nope
Yep
https://g.co/gemini/share/0d063966763e
Still missing sources for many of its facts.
More of your lies
Weirdly the few source
links which are on that page won't even open for me in Firefox,
you click and nothing happens, even though they work in my own
Gemini responses (when it gives me some).
Gemini gave me lots of sources for paintings after
misinterpreting my question about "Winter Landscape" by Josef Jahn,
as I posted here earlier.
No you didnt
Yes I did, here: <698590f2@news.ausics.net>
That link doesnt work
Then when I followed up with more
specific questions noting "Winter Landscape" was a tracker module
its answers didn't include any sources anymore
So you lied about no sources
Zero sources in the responses to the questions about the tracker
module, sources were only in the first response when it uselessly
talked about paintings.
and it started making things up.
More of your lies
More of your lies
Here are the key bits again:
QUESTION:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
what year was the tracker module Winter Landscape by Josef Jahn
released?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANSWER:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The tracker module "Winter Landscape" by Josef Jahn was released in
1996.
[waffle... waffle... waffle...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUESTION:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
winter landscape by Josef Jahn release year
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANSWER:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, there appears to be a slight mix-up with the name. The
famous tracker module titled "Winter Landscape" was actually
composed by Jogeir Liljedahl, not Josef Jahn.
It was released in 1995 (specifically around November) as part of
the Amiga demoscene.
[waffle... waffle... waffle...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I said before:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The module file itself says:
Winter Landscape
(C) 2001 Josef Jahn
http://www.playspoon.com
And if you view the author's long-dead website on the Wayback
Machine it confirms that it was: "written by Josef Jahn 31 December
2001":
http://web.archive.org/web/20060130235039/http://www.playspoon.com/awf/index.php?id=137
The correct info is also on the modern web at The Mod Archive,
where their news talks about struggling to keep the site online
against the waves of AI bots recently scraping it to death. Not
that it did this AI any good apparantly. Searching "winter
landscape" there quickly brings it up a single correct result:
https://modarchive.org/index.php?request=view_by_moduleid&query=171297
Where you can see "(C) 2001 Josef Jahn" under "Internal Texts". But
I guess that's above the intelligence of the Artificial Idiot that
also got other facts in its waffle wrong, and provided no
references to check with that response.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But OK let's try again and see what nonsense it's got to waffle
about now:
(I guess you need a Google account to make those permanent Gemini
answer links)
QUESTION:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
what year was the tracker module Winter Landscape by Josef Jahn
released?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ANSWER:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The tracker module **"Winter Landscape"** by **Josef Jahn** was
released in **1996**.
Josef Jahn is a veteran of the tracker music scene, particularly
known for his work in the mid-to-late 90s across platforms like the
Amiga and PC. His tracks often appeared on "mod" archives and were
featured in various demoscene productions and early internet radio
playlists.
### Release Context
* **Format:** The track was primarily distributed as a **.mod** or
**.s3m** module file.
* **Scene Presence:** Jahn's work from this era is frequently
characterized by melodic, atmospheric electronic styles. "Winter
Landscape" is often cited alongside his other popular 1996-1997
tracks, such as *"The Wolf Inside"* and *"Deep in the Forest"*.
* **Modern Accessibility:** While originally shared on BBS
(Bulletin Board Systems) and early file repositories like Aminet or
The Hornet Archive, the track still surfaces today on
tracker-focused radio stations (like *Ericade Radio*) that
specialize in 90s Amiga and PC modules.
---
**Technical Note:** In the tracking community, Josef Jahn is alsorecognized for his contributions beyond music, including his work
as a developer for tools like the **RF Explorer** Windows client.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's back to 1996 for the year,
Hardly surprising that it doesnt search the wayback machine yet
and has lots of new wrong waffle
about it being in .mod and .s3m formats when it's a .it module, and
talking about Aminet when it's not an Amiga module, and just a
general wall of made up nonsense with no sources at all.
Oh but it does give me one source this time, for this part at the
end:
"Technical Note: In the tracking community, Josef Jahn is also
recognized for his contributions beyond music, including his
work as a developer for tools like the RF Explorer Windows
client."
- cite:
https://www.scribd.com/document/396728188/RF-Explorer-for-Windows-Release-Notes
The cite window shows a quote where the only names mentioned are
here:
"(thanks users Shaun O'Sullivan and Stewart Andreason)"
Yeah, great work Gemini, it can't even remember the name it's
looking for, let alone figure out that RF Explorer has nothing to
do with "the tracking community" (it's a handheld radio spectrum
analyser device with a PC interface).
Besides that, there are still no cites for anything beside its
"technical note", so you can't so easily tell how irrelevent the
rest of its info is, including the year I was asking about.
Doing a web search with the same prompt brought
up irrelevent Wikipedia pages which it was clearly pulling info
from.
So a google search would have failed too
Indeed, and you can see that it has failed because all the results
are obviously irrelevent, including the irrelevent Wikipedia page
for Jogeir Liljedahl which came up in Duck Duck Go's results.
Therefore you ignore them and search a specific site like The Mod
Archive and get an accurate answer.
So your mindless bullshit about googling being
much better than AI was just that, mindless bullshit
AI on the other hand covers up the failure by waffling on and on
with all sorts of semi-accurate facts to try and make the response
sound relevent when actually it's completely away with the fairies.
Wikipedia isn't a highly trustworthy source
Have fun listing anything that is
The release year stated by the author of a work on their own
website.
Which doesnt exist anymore
Also the text that's part of the work itself.
Which is hardly ever available with most questions
even when the pages are_ relevent,
More of your mindless bullshit
but clearly its content is weighted highly by the AI algorithm.
Its actually weighted by who modifys the page
It doesn't know who modified the page,
That is trivial to check if you want to know that
it can't even figure out
the name Josef Jahn doesn't match "Shaun O'Sullivan and Stewart
Andreason".
As I pointed out before, a specific search at The Mod Archive
brought up the correct information easily, so it was out there on
the web. Also on the artist's dead website in the Internet Archive.
But if you trusted Gemini you'd believe its lies instead of finding
the true info yourself.
You don't have to trust, you are free to check the sources it provides,
just like with a google search, but with far less farting around
Not when it doesn't provide you any sources!
There you go again with your stupid lie about any sources
And when it does,
checking all those and weeding out the junk to tell how much of its
answer you can believe is more work than just reading one good
search result from a decent source in the first place.
Have fun actually finding that
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 494926:58:34 |
| Calls: | 162 |
| Files: | 568 |
| D/L today: |
14 files (349K bytes) |
| Messages: | 74,906 |