Facebook? π
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Cool Guides
6453 readers
1 users here now
Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community
1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.
2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.
3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.
4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.
5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.
6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.
Community Guidelines
-
Direct Image Links Only Only direct links to .png, .jpg, and .jpeg image formats are permitted.
-
Educational Infographics Only Infographics must aim to educate and inform with structured content. Purely narrative or non-informative infographics may be removed.
-
Serious Guides Only Nonserious or comedy-based guides will be removed.
-
No Harmful Content Guides promoting dangerous or harmful activities/materials will be removed. This includes content intended to cause harm to others.
By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Garbage in, garbage out...
Basically this means to head back to reddit and poison up!
So basically it's just a Reddit search engine. Where most of the facts are based on "trust me bro".
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah that's not how you're supposed to use reddit in your search. But why are there so many stores on this list of "fact" sources?
"Everythere" is a radical new word.
Perfectly cromulent
Embiggens the best of us.
Canoodling in the threads.
Uhhh, these donβt add up to 100%, is it that an answer can have multiple sources?
For example, 40% of the queries they tested received an LLM response that used reddit as a source, 26% used wiki as a source...etc. Multiple sources can be used in each response. They tested google ai mode, ai overview, chatgpt , and perplexity.
From my experience there are 3-5 sources per responce.
So aside from Wikipedia which is a publicly user maintained service which has become pretty reputable .... the majority of the 'facts' that LLMs collect (about 75%) is all collected from privately controlled websites with curated content that is managed and maintained by corporations. And of all that content, most of it is also manipulated and controlled to make people either angry, mad, frightened, sad or anxious.
They're teaching the next AI on our negative impulses, greatest fears and worst anxieties.
What could go wrong?
Yes. Better if they collect it from personal blogs running on people's PCs π
That would be a more honest representation of human culture rather than the curated content that is constantly manipulated and controlled by a private corporation.
So the same places as everyone else then?
"Google.com"
Holy recursive lookups batman
It's far worse than that. AI can cite something AI generated as a source which itself is using something generated by AI as a source. So you can get an AI summary that uses an AI generated video as a source which itself used an AI generated article as a source and that article itself was an AI hallucination. We're essentially polluting the internet making it an unreliable source of information.
"It's AI all the way down!"
"What about stuff before AI?"
"That was analog intelligence which is still AI!"
Presenting the new Ouroboros AI ^TM^ model.
Hey chatgpt, what is a 'fuck spez' greeting?
No wonder it keeps telling me about Hell in a Cell and an announcer's table.
I do like the early days when it would pop up crazy shit from reddit., because they tossed it in unfiltered
Some crazy examples floating around where someone asked "Can you fall if you run off a cliff?" and the Google search assist AI gave some classic reddit response like "if you don't look down you won't fall."
Dumb shit probably still pops up.
Guess we're lucky Yahoo Answers didn't live long enough to make it to the top of that list.
Then again, I would love to see an LLM go "how is babby formed" when asked reproductive questions.
They need to do away instain mother
That's not how AI learns "facts", that's how AI learns tokens.
Wikipedia is like the only decent source.
Depends on what it's for. If I'm asking a discrete question about a mechanic in a video game, Wikipedia won't have that.
As much as I don't like AI, it has made a lot of my Google searches better. Still not good for a lot of the things people use it for though.
Maybe you researched wrong? The way I would use Wikipedia is search for βvideo gameβthen rabbit holes (not a bad thing, more info the better)>game engine> node programming > game engine >game mechanics > gaming concepts> animation > so on (canβt think of other examples). You need to connect the dots that Wikipedia has provided in their format/layout.
No, I mean for example if I want to know what how the "Trusty Shield" boon works in Hades 2, I can just google it and get the answer right away.
20 years ago, I'd have gone to gamefaqs and found a text guide with the answer.
10 years ago, I'd have googled it and gotten a bunch of useless fucking videos.
5 years ago I'd have added "reddit" to my search and had to click through results to find the answer in the comments eventually.
Today I just search for it and get the answer right away.
Google's search engine has only gotten shittier every year, except in these very specific cases where AI search results actually help.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's not even a source itself, like a search engine or encyclopedia it references other sources for it's content.
Or a source of sources LMAO. Still better than my Reddit comments. Which they are helpful but also stupid silly at the same time.
This graphic is missing the enormous amount of pirated media
Of the nearly decade I spent on that platform I averaged 1 post and 5 comments a day. I had a habit of bullshitting a lot of stuff to get people's emotions out and pointing out a lot of hypocrisy.
So if your AI is full of shit, you can thank me by telling it to go fuck itself.
Thank you for your service!
Half of the comments on Reddit and lemmy are just stupid jokes. I donβt see how the AI training is able to make the distinction, given that actual humans seem to have problems grasping the concept. Like people who lecture you on adding slash s at the end of your comment.
Walmart, Home Depot and Target.
Learned institutions.
Lololololol. Reddit is 80-90% bots anymore. Real people are no longer making informed posts like we did ten plus years ago.
Don't forget all the books, movies, music, etc they train on from pirated sources not included in the graph
Walmart?
And google prioritizes reddit responses, so it's a bit of an ouroboros of garbage.
How do they scrape Google? Even if they search for a term and crawl the results, those arenβt actually googles content.
What if people really got banned on Reddit for posting nonsense. I remember responding to several comments where people threw random words in and spelled stuff wrong. It was a funny trend, but could have set back their billion dollar AI.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I'm amazed its brain isn't completely paralyzed with this dataset lmao
Was this guide AI generated as well? Looks like it credits over 100% of its information gathering to the first four sites on the list.
another comment explains some responses can contain multiple sources hence >100%
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next βΊ