Let's talk about Artificial Intelligence

[nomadpete]

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but....

The very first task that AI should complete successfully is to redesign itself to use far less electricity and no water. If it can't solve that problem, why should we trust it to do anything else?

 

[old man emu]

A big AI company wants to create data centres in Australia that will require more electricity than we are capable of generating. Data centres' demand for energy will increase more than sixfold from

2024–25 to 2040, surging from 2 to 13 per cent of the country's total energy use.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-27/ai-data-centres-pressuring-energy-transition-greenpeace-says/106722390

[willedoo]

I'm trying not to fall into the habit with Google of just reading the top section only which is the AI response to the question. The reason being it can be quite misleading. Like Wikiedia, it's not gospel and is all about the source reference. I Googled a question yesterday and the two answers AI came up with were just posts harvested from a Facebook group. What AI was saying was just what some bloke on a FB group said about the subject. It might well have been true, but not a reliable reference source in my opinion.

 

Wikipedia can have the same issues. Sometimes the reference, if the reader bothers to check it, can be just a newspaper article and a journalists opinion only and not established fact.

[willedoo]

The other issue I wonder about with Google AI is the revenue effect it will have on website operators. Most websites are funded by click per view payments from the advertising (sponsers) on their website. Google AI is harvesting information from their sites to use as a response to Google search questions. But if people don't go past the top of the page where the AI answer is, all those websites are missing out on site traffic which equals income. I wonder if Google pays them a royalty for using their information.

Edited 11 hours ago by willedoo

[Marty_d]

The difference is that Wikipedia can be corrected by anyone. AI can't.

If you don't want to get the AI guff, just put -AI after your search. For example:

 

Antonov AN2 -AI 

[willedoo]

 

5 hours ago, Marty_d said:

If you don't want to get the AI guff, just put -AI after your search. For example:

I tried it Marty but unfortunately it doesn't work. Maybe that trick only works with certain browsers.

[willedoo]

That's odd, it's working now. Good trick. I use Floorp which is Firefox based.

Edited 5 hours ago by willedoo

[onetrack]

It only works selectively. I use Google Chrome. I tried variations of the search, such as "-AI: What is Antonov AN2", or "no AI: What is Antonov AN2", and AI generated answers still appeared - but they were clips of text taken from websites (to which, they did add the link, I must say). 

 

I have to agree with Willie, that Google's use of short lengths of text from websites is a bit "iffy". However, they would no doubt quote "educational use rights", whereby you can copy parts of text of authors/websites, and it is regarded as "fair use" under copyright terms. And they do send you to the site quoted. However, Google generates income from doing so, so that negates the "fair use" angle, IMO.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by onetrack

[willedoo]

On the other side of the coin, if it's a simple straightforward question you want answered, the Google AI overview is a quick handy way to do it. I'm referring there to questions of the type that could probably only have a correct answer.