AI is very good at research. Instead of asking a question and getting back a buch of URLs it actually answers the question. That’s the greatest use of it. Is it going to replace an HR department? No.
-SB
yes, but it makes up too much stuff.
I have used it three times in the last month for researching a very narrow Civil War subject that I have spent years studying. In each case it fabricated quotes and sources. It offered to draw a map for me on this subject and it placed two towns in the Gulf of America. It quoted me from a newspaper article that did exist, saying things I never said.
It made up a quote from a book, citing page 178. When I told it I was holding that book in my hands and it only had 120 pages, it apologized profusely and started making unconvincing excuses, including that it had “inferred” the page number from similar books. It quoted material from the National Archives that exists only in manuscript form (hence unavailable to AI) and couldn’t explain how it got the “facts” it cited.
On another subject, I asked it how many games Mickey Mantle missed in ‘61. It told me 15 and listed the dates. I looked in the Baseball Encyclopedia (the bible of baseball to true fans) and it showed Mantle missed one game that season.
It is a complete fraud.
My experience is that it repeats statement culled off the net...it basically is an automated search engine.
I know it yields “answers”, based on basic principles, but it is not exhaustive. I would not trust it. But it does give reasons for me to continue searching. It may not be able to access information in books or information that is not on the net. So it can be limited.
I have made it come to different conclusions for same question if I added some qualifiers to the question.
A generic example:
Does X always occur?
Ans: Yes.
Does X always occur, considering that Y is a factor?
Ans: No, X doesn’t always occur because of Y.
Here’s some “research” that Senator Marsha Blackburn did on herself -