I disagree. A big LLM might get a mundane question right, but it might not. To call it reliable is laughable.

What it is is confident, and if you don’t know the answer yourself, it will seem plausible.

I had this enabled, but i never figured out you have to tap the app icon to bring up a menu… Nothing else that i can think of works like that in Android.

I’m playing it for the 2nd or 3rd time right now, i forget which.

I like Antimatter Dimensions and Exponential Idle

I don’t think we understand each other.

To me, several times shorter makes perfect sense, and twice as short is a special case, where it is two times as short. Thus, several times shorter includes:

• two times shorter == twice as short
• 1.5 times shorter == 1.5 times as short
• five times shorter == five times as short
• several times shorter == several times as short (the “as short” construction sounds clunky to me here in this case)

As i write these out, i realize what you were trying to say: X times shorter is equivalent to X times as short for me, so equivalent that I didn’t realize when I was using one or the other.

You are saying that for some people, the “X times shorter” construction doesn’t sound natural. I can respect that, but it doesn’t seem like a part of mainstream English to me at least.

“Twice shorter” isn’t what anyone is talking about. That isn’t how you combine the words, at least to me.

I don’t understand twice shorter – how would you use it in context?

I think my example stands

Could of is gibberish, i agree with you there.

But making something twice as short makes perfect sense to me. However short it is now, make it half that size.

What is the confusion?

I disagree. Twice as short would be half the length if you asked me (same as twice as long, in a glass half empty, half full situation).

In a similar but different example, if you have a 1000 word essay and you cut it to 500 words, you could make it twice as short again by cutting it to 250 words.

Google is shit.

There’s a large list of things LLM are known to not be reliable for: searching anything beyond surface informations

This implies that it is reliable for “surface informations” which i disagree with, though a lot of people get sucked in that way

An article has context. Who published it? What else has the author written? Llm articles strip that all out.

“No camera, no microphone, no AI, no battery, no electronics of any kind,” Knockaround boasts on its website. “Just a beautifully crafted pair of matte black sunglasses with a glossy DuckDuckGo logo, designed to block the sun and never send data to the cloud

Your comment is wrong

You should check your facts about meat efficiency, soy milk and dairy… And don’t just ask ai to tell you what you want to hear…

The reactions to your comment are insane.

A lot of weird things in this comment, like implying that it is OK to use llms to search for surface information. That is just as biased as searching for more complicated info, and the tone of the llm response white-washes it all away.

I like that everyone can agree with this comment, regardless of which side they’re on.

Not op, but a search engine is a better starting point than an LLM, because it is a predictable tool, fetching internet resources which can be evaluated on their merits.

The AI presents itself as the actual information.

I see too many people in my daily life saying “the ai summary said…” and it is worse than useless.

The fact that people think LLMs should be trusted as a starting point is heartbreaking to me.

I think that’s unreasonable, but that’s just me.