Ngl, I checked the AI answer hoping that it would be wrong when I started opening links. Unfortunately, the first handful of actual search results all gave about the same number.
Mostly though, I just meant “I checked like three websites that Google brought me to, but I’m not going to bother listing them” :P
And B. I glanced at a number as I scrolled past, said “I’m not satisfied with a number that AI pulled out of nowhere,” and checked the actual search results. There’s a heavy emphasis on sustainability with hemp farming, so every source dealt with how much carbon it sequestered and “CO2 equivalent,” which I guess includes other greenhouse gasses. I didn’t feel like diving into how much of that was actually CO2, so I treated it all as CO2 for the sake of the (again, shitty) math.
If it makes you feel better, I’ll close my eyes next time while I scroll past the AI crap on my way to the search results.
I interpreted that to mean that they checked the AI answer that google sticks at the top of every search, which is unfortunately best practice if you’re not tech-savvy enough to use DDG + a pile of Firefox extensions to help filter out the mass produced slop websites.
What with the absolute hamstringing of search engines, going to the sources of the AI suggested answer is often the only way to get directly relevant information to your question out of google. It’s for sure slopper behavior to just accept the answer without checking, but that didn’t sound like what happened. Maybe I’m just projecting my own behavior onto them, though.
…Sort of?
Ngl, I checked the AI answer hoping that it would be wrong when I started opening links. Unfortunately, the first handful of actual search results all gave about the same number.
Mostly though, I just meant “I checked like three websites that Google brought me to, but I’m not going to bother listing them” :P
You have no credibility with me, slopper.
I mean… A. I said it was shitty math.
And B. I glanced at a number as I scrolled past, said “I’m not satisfied with a number that AI pulled out of nowhere,” and checked the actual search results. There’s a heavy emphasis on sustainability with hemp farming, so every source dealt with how much carbon it sequestered and “CO2 equivalent,” which I guess includes other greenhouse gasses. I didn’t feel like diving into how much of that was actually CO2, so I treated it all as CO2 for the sake of the (again, shitty) math.
If it makes you feel better, I’ll close my eyes next time while I scroll past the AI crap on my way to the search results.
… But they did the good thing and didn’t slop.
I interpreted that to mean that they checked the AI answer that google sticks at the top of every search, which is unfortunately best practice if you’re not tech-savvy enough to use DDG + a pile of Firefox extensions to help filter out the mass produced slop websites.
What with the absolute hamstringing of search engines, going to the sources of the AI suggested answer is often the only way to get directly relevant information to your question out of google. It’s for sure slopper behavior to just accept the answer without checking, but that didn’t sound like what happened. Maybe I’m just projecting my own behavior onto them, though.