this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
109 points (83.4% liked)

No Stupid Questions

48643 readers
666 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

No, this isn't a case of different people having different opinions about different ways to obtain information during different times. More often than not, I find that the SAME people who act like Wikipedia is the most unreliable thing on Earth unironically trust the FIRST Google Search result they see, as well as everything they've ever seen in ChatGPT.

Need I remind you that Google is LITERALLY designed to cater to your biases? And it's gotten WORSE because the first result you see is NOW AI-Generated. Also, Google is not a source! And AI Chatbots cite THEMSELVES as sources!

Wikipedia on the other hand is curated by REAL VOLUNTEER HUMANS who strive to be accurate as possible. I'm aware that Wikipedia is no stranger to agendas or vandalism, but these editors are quick and dedicated to be as accurate as possible. So much so that whenever a building is on fire, they LITERALLY label it as "Status: Burning". Not burned... BURNING! ~~Meanwhile, Google tells you to put glue on your pizza...~~

And yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a source. Like Google, Wikipedia is a GATEWAY to sources, and not a source in and of itself. But at the very least, Wikipedia DOESN'T try to give you what you will like, because you'll get what is (most likely) the truth instead, backed up by several CREDIBLE sources that are constantly fact-checked by volunteer humans.

So why do people hate Wikipedia so much? And why do these SAME PEOPLE cite Google and ChatGPT as a source?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wikipedia: it’s an encyclopedia. Fine for a general overview of a topic, but you need to follow it to primary sources if you want to make an authoritative argument.

Google: it’s got an AI summary at the top and a bunch of SEO’d results on the first pages.

LLMs: really good at translating a lot of content down into something that’s easy to read. Not necessarily easy to understand, not necessarily accurate, not citing it’s sources accurately, but easy to read.

So: where do people’s attitudes come from towards them?

We now have 25 years of Wikipedia. That means that for 25 years, anyone in school from K through university has had it drilled i to them “you can’t use Wikipedia as a primary source!” Which is often interpreted by kids (now adults) as “don’t trust Wikipedia!”

Google has been around for 28 years. When it started, the other search engines always missed things, had a bunch of ads, and were slow. Google was this fast clean interface that could instantly find whatever you were looking for on the world wide web, and the exact human created content you wanted would almost always be featured on the first page of results. People who grew up with that might be slow to catch on to the fact that Google today doesn’t do that. So they trust the results and assume the information they’re looking for must be there somewhere on the first page.

LLMs are new. They hold the promise of early Google in that they crawled all the source material for you and present a summary so you don’t even have to decide which link has the right answer. They haven’t been around long enough for a generation to be trained to distrust the messages they provide.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

LLMs are great when they work well. Problem is, they hallucinate a lot.

For example I was just trying to research if/how I could stay and work at a nearby airport - I need to leave my Airbnb by 10am but my flight is at 7pm, so I'm thinking of heading right to the airport and just working from there.

Gemini told me that at this airport there's numerous landside cafés and work pods available.

Perplexity said for sure there will be spots I can work from.

Both were incredibly wrong as they collated information from airside - even though I specifically asked for landside as the airline I'm flying with doesn't offer early luggage dropoff, so until ~4pm I'm stuck landside.

guess what there is landside? a single cafe with about 10 seats...

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

LLMs are also stuck in the past. Always ask an LLM what the date is before starting a session that has any expectation of current results. Usually you’ll find the information it prioritizes is from a few years ago.

LLMs also often incorrectly weight information.

If you have a popular website that has outdated information with a note at the top that the information is outdated, the LLM will see it’s a well respected site, ignore the disclaimer at the top that falls out of it’s context window, and happily tell you the annotatedly incorrect information is the baseline truth.

It’s possible to get good results out of an LLM, but it’s a skill, just like engineering a good Google search string or using Wikipedia to find the primary source information you need.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 1 day ago

The LLMs in question aren't providing data from their training set, but are transforming live data retrieved from the internet. So their date is quite irrelevant, what matters is their ability of contextual data filtering and transformation.