103
Steel hunting bow, India, 19th century AD (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/historyartifacts@lemmy.world
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://www.runjeetsingh.com/inventory/196/steel_hunting_bow_kaman

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I didn't try to answer the comment above. I upvoted it, seconded the request, then added on with another query about the bow.

Nobody's forcing you to read the GPT output. I simply condensed what I found for readability and offered it up for the purposes of anyone's curiosity. FWIW, so far my hand-searches indeed seem to confirm the results above.

And yeah, sure, I get that LLM AI's can hallucinate results at times, but I consider this a pretty straight-ahead kind of query, one in which I've found LLM's highly useful in the past.

Also, there's a rather well-known aspect of the internet in that one of the best ways to test knowledge and get it swiftly corrected is to post or comment with flawed info. So that's another thing I was curious about-- did GPT's findings make the grade in this case? Yet reason I specifically added on to the comment above, since they were asking for an archery-experienced person to opine.

Hope you have a better day going forward.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Then why bother posting it, getting offended, and defending yourself? Just why? No one needs to waste their time scrolling past the literal garbage of a reposted gpt response.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Offended? You and the other person seem to be doing a great job of that all by yourselves, lol

    No one needs to waste their time scrolling past the literal garbage of a reposted gpt response.

    For the record, I didn't "repost" anything. I formulated the query, tweaked it, improved it, got the best results I deemed possible, then heavily edited it down in to something quick and comprehensible. Did a couple quick hand-queries which seemed to confirm the GPT results, then decided to add it to my comment, just for Gits & Shiggles.

    What I do find amusing, however, is that you two are reacting as if I'd loudly trumpeted "AND HERE ARE THE DEFINITE RESULTS FROM OUR NEW GOD."

    Also worth a good chortle is you acting as if social media is intrinsically meant to be chock full of the highest-quality, fact-checked results, when you know perfectly well it never was and never will be.

    Indeed, I'd put money on the modern AI response performing better in terms of facts & reality than the average social media users'. I don't think it would even be close, really, as most popular threads are typically overflowing with BS and bad jokes, as you should well know... oh! Unless of course you're completely new to the medium!!

    Which it sounds like you are. In which case-- WELCOME. 😀

    Oh, and just for the record-- I despise the dangers of AI, personally, and am hugely concerned about it destroying jobs and possibly even worse. I don't trust it for a minute, yet at the same time, don't mind taking advantage of it for very simple, innocuous queries like this.

    Again, I hope you two have a better day. And again, we welcome you, kindly. ^^

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Offended? Annoyed is a better description. Social media is meant to be organic and with that comes inaccuracies. I don't mind the inaccurate nature of GenAi but it's not contributive. It's low effort, and it doesn't belong in the medium. You would have been better off posting it at the top level instead of piggybacking on a different thread. You even seem to use -- in the way people did in the era of typewriters. Adapting AI outputs is changing the landscape of these spaces for the worse.

    It sounds like you should add "less condescending" to your prompts from now on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah, I already explained the full range of reasons why I added the comment above, regardless of anyone's petty attempt to characterise my comment as 'simply copying and stealing AI.'

    It sounds like you should add "less condescending" to your prompts from now on.

    Which again highlights the response above, i.e. welcome to the internet, my friend.

    Bonus pts for the idea that: maybe just maybe, if you're being an obnoxious a-hole in life, people just miiiiight not treat you with the customary politeness that you're otherwise due?

    Or did you want a special exemption in this case?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Your problems obviously extend past chatroom etiquette. I'm perfectly happy with most of the discourse I experience online. If this kind of hostility is what you expect then maybe that's a you problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I'm perfectly happy with most of the discourse I experience online.

    Haha, in which you picked an unnecessary fight with someone who, in his own words, 'offered up some speculative BS,' casts some rather looming amounts of doubt upon all that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent