Librarian here: Good news is that many libraries are standing up AI literacy programs to show people not only how to judge AI outputs but also how to get better results. If your local library isn’t doing this ask them why not.
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
790 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
78098 readers
2507 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Any good examples I could share with my local libraries?
Luckily, the future will provide not only AI titles, but the contents of said books as well.
Given the amount of utter drivel people are watching and reading of late, we're probably already most of the way there.
I was under the impression there were completely ai written books for sale on the internet on places like Amazon already!
As if a huge chunk of genre section wasn't already as formulaic as if it was written by AI
Wait, are you guys saying "Of Mice And Men: Lennie's back" isn't real? I will LOSE MY SHIT if anyone confirms this!! 1!! 2.!
It's ok, it's real....now just tell me about the bunnies.
Every time I think people have reached maximum stupidity they prove me wrong.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
Albert Einstein (supposedly)
I had to explain to three separate family members what it means for an Ai to hallucinate. The look of terror on their faces after is proof that people have no idea how "smart" a LLM chatbot is. They have been probably using one at work for a year thinking they are accurate.
I legitimately don't understand how someone can interact with an LLM for more than 30 minutes and come away from it thinking that it's some kind of super intelligence or that it can be trusted as a means of gaining knowledge without external verification. Do they just not even consider the possibility that it might not be fully accurate and don't bother to test it out? I asked it all kinds of tough and ambiguous questions the day I got access to ChatGPT and very quickly found inaccuracies, common misconceptions, and popular but ideologically motivated answers. For example, I don't know if this is still like this but if you ask ChatGPT questions about who wrote various books of the Bible, it will give not only the traditional view, but specifically the evangelical Christian view on most versions of these questions. This makes sense because they're extremely prolific writers, but it's simply wrong to reply "Scholars generally believe that the Gospel of Mark was written by a companion of Peter named John Mark" because this view hasn't been favored in academic biblical studies for over 100 years, even though it is traditional. Similarly, asking it questions about early Islamic history gets you the religious views of Ash'ari Sunni Muslims and not the general scholarly consensus.
I mean. I've used AI to write my job mandated end of year self assessment report. I don't care about this, it's not like they'll give me a pay rise so I'm not putting effort into it.
The AI says I've lead a project related to windows 11 updates. I haven't but it looks accurate and no one else will be able to dell it's fake.
So I guess the reason is they are using the AI to talk about subjects they can't fact check. So it looks accurate.
I have a friend who constantly sends me videos that get her all riled up. Half the time I patiently explain to her why a video is likely AI or faked some other way. "Notice how it never says where it is taking place? Notice how they never give any specific names?" Fortunately she eventually agrees with me but I feel like I'm teaching critical thinking 101. I then think of the really stupid people out there who refuse to listen to reason.
The results I get from chatgpt half the time are pretty bad. If I ask for simple code it is pretty good but ask it about how something works? Nope. All I need to do is slightly rephrase the question and I can get a totally different answer.
I mainly use it as a search engine, like: "Find me an article that explains how to change a light bulb" kinda shit.
Idk how anyone searches the internet anymore. Search engines all turn up so I ask an AI. Maybe one out of 20 times it turns up what I'm asking for better than a search engine. The rest of the time it runs me in circles that don't work and wastes hours. So then I go back to the search engine and find what I need buried 20 pages deep.
I pay for Kagi search. It’s amazing
I usually skip the AI blurb because they are so inaccurate, and dig through the listings for the info I'm researching. If I go back and look at the AI blurb after that, I can tell where they took various little factoids, and occasionally they'll repeat some opinion or speculation as fact.
Usually the blurb is pure opinion.
load more comments
(3 replies)
It's fucking awful isn't it. Summer day soon when i can be arsed I'll have to give one of the paid search engines a go.
I'm currently on qwant but I've already noticed a degradation in its results since i started using it at the start of the year.
The paid options arnt any better. When the well is poisoned it doesn't matter if your bucket is made of shitty rotting wood, or the nicest golden vessel to have graced the hands of a mankind.
Your getting lead poisoning either way. You just get to give away money for the privilege with one and the other forces the poisoned water down your throat faster.
I've asked it for a solution to something and it gives me A. I tell it A doesn't work so it says "Of course!" and gives me B. Then I tell it B doesn't work and it gives me A...
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
I read that as libertarians at first and wasn't even fased. We all know Ayn Rand was secretly a machine.
No AI needed for that. These bloody librarians wouldn't let us have the Necronomicon either. Selfish bastards...
Am librarian. Here you go
Some pages are omitted. Yeah. There's like four pages of 300. I'm disappointed beyond measure and my day is ruined.
My bad. I should have linked directly to the one in the Miskatonic University archive. (it takes a while to load, but it does load for me, all the pages)
awesome, thank you
Limited preview - some pages are unavailable.
Very funny... Yäääh! Shabb nigurath.... wrdlbrmbfd,
load more comments
(9 replies)
Some people even think that adding things like “don’t hallucinate” and “write clean code” to their prompt will make sure their AI only gives the highest quality output.
Arthur C. Clarke was not wrong but he didn't go far enough. Even laughably inadequate technology is apparently indistinguishable from magic.
load more comments
(23 replies)
i don't think it's emphasized enough that AI isn't just making up bogus citations with nonexistent books and articles, but increasingly actual articles and other sources are completely AI generated too. so a reference to a source might be "real," but the source itself is complete AI slop bullshit
the actual danger of it all should be apparent, especially in any field related to health science research
and of course these fake papers are then used to further train AI, causing factually wrong information to spread even more
load more comments
(16 replies)
I guess Thomas Fullman was right: "When humans find wisdom in cold replicas of themselves, the arrow of evolution will bend into a circle". That's from Automating the Mind. One of his best.
Everyone knows that AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini can often hallucinate sources.
No, no, apparently not everyone, or this wouldn't be a problem.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›