alt Hacker NewsI was in a research math lecture the other day, and the speaker used some obscure technical terminology I didn't know. So I dug out my phone and googled it.
The AI summary at the top was surprisingly good! Of course, the AI isn't doing anything original; instead, it created a summary of whatever written material is already out there. Which is exactly what I wanted.
Replies
I have to agree. People moan that the ai summary is rubbish but that misses the point. If i need a quick overview of a subject i don't necessarily need anything more then a low quality summary. It's easier then wading through a bunch of blogs of unknown quality.
I have a counterpoint from yesterday.
I looked up a medical term, that is frequently misused (eg. "retarded"), and asked the Gemini to compare it with similar conditions.
Because I have enough of a background in the subject matter, I could tell what it had construed by its mixing the many incorrect references with the much fewer correct references in the training data.
I asked it for sources, and it failed to provide anything useful. But once I am looking at sources, I would be MUCH better off searching and only reading the sources might actually be useful.
I was sitting with a medical professional at the time (who is not also a programmer) and he completely swallowed what Gemini was feeding him. He commented that he appreciates that these summaries let him know when he is not up to date with the latest advances, and he learnt alot from the response.
As an aside, I am not sure I appreciate that Google's profile would now associate me with that particular condition.
Scary!
[dead]
My counterpoint to this is, if someone cannot verify the validity of the summary then is it truly a summary? And what would the end result be if the vast majority of people opted to adopt or deny a position based on the summary written by a third party?
This isn't strictly a case against AI, just a case that we have a contradiction on the definition of "well informed". We value over-consumption, to the point where we see learning 3 things in 5 minutes as better than learning 1 thing in 5 minutes, even if that means being fully unable to defend or counterpoint what we just read.
I'm speficially referring to what you said: "the speaker used some obscure technical terminology I didn't know" this is due to lack of assumed background knowledge, which makes it hard to verify a summary on your own.