This is a fun look at how AI deals with Alan Levine's longstanding question about "the history, source and scientific rationale behind the claim the 3M scientists proved that humans perceive information in images 60000 times faster than text." The catch is, there is no source for this result; it appears to have been made up. ChatGPT fails utterly, but Bing AI does much better, employing actual search results. "This is good," says Levine, "but again, these are sources for the result it spat out… this is by no means the sources of what Bing was trained on to be able to do this magic trick." I think the issue is that actual research with a search engine is a two-step process: first, run the search, then second, follow up through the references and/or links found in those search results. Bing apparently does the first, but clearly, not the second.
Today: 0 Total: 18 [Direct link] [Share]
