Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, It can do research much faster than any of us.
Last edited:
Is MS Copilot a search engine?
- Thread starter Write4U
- Start date
- Status
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
AI chatbots don't do research. They are simple echo chambers, and they are notorious for being wrong.
Yikes. James R skewered you with that one.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It is outright dismissal. So the point is moot.
Until we actually have a discussion and I make cogent arguments.
Unless the scientist is a tenured professor at a prestigious University like MIT. Then calling him a snake-oil salesman is open for a law-suit if that label causes him to suffer financially.
CoPilot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark#
It is indeed. Note that the bot quoted wikipedia verbatim, but condensed the wiki article to my parameters.
Because I did not include it in the parameter of the search instruction, this is what the AI did not include.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark#
Do you use a "search engine"? And how do you define your own searches?
Does James R use a search engine? And how does he define his searches?
If you don't use a search engine like a GPT4 , you are wasting time. They only search what you define, just like any search engine, but they can do it 100 x faster than you can.
Traditional Search vs. Copilot | Microsoft Bing
Web Nov 21, 2023 ·
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/bin...nal-search-vs-bing-chat-ai-search?form=MA13KP
p.s. "skewered" is not a scientifically accepted term and suggests a form of "burning at the stake", a medieval practice.....?
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
And what exactly do you know about my brain? Is it possible that I understand the concept of AI at a deeper level than you think?
So far all you talk about is semantics, without addressing content.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yikes.
You-know, I always suspected you were just a chatbot yourself, and have said so many times, based on your bizarre, incogent ramblings.
Now I stand vindicated. You are not a chatbot yourself, you are simply the mouthpiece for one.
What a waste of everyone's time.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
For your information, this is the first time I have ever used a AI as a search-tool. And I have indicated it, because it is good practice to cite origin and source.
Again you are making premature and prejudicial assumptions. I bet you have never even tried it.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You continue to enlighten us all with your acumen.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Then it's pretty silly of you to say "if we're not using it we're wasting our time."
We know what it is capable of; you do not.
I am not making assumptions whether premature or prejudicial.
I have experimented with it, and it does not produce accurate results.
Your use of it is even more mindless than when you used to do keyword searches and slavishly paste whatever came up.
James R: Many other science sites do not consider chatbots and LLMs as valid references, and they sure don't allow the posting of Chatbot results as if they are discussion content.
It may be impractical here to forbid such content but perhaps it would be useful to require all chatbot results and content to have a big disclaimer identifying itself - like it must be posted in italic orange text or something to distinguish it from real content.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You ... don't even know the difference between a search engine and an LLM.
Stop sowing this ignorance.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You don't know how to use an AI for a particular limited purpose. In this case as a search engine.
Query: Can Copilot be used as a search engine?
Copilot:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=can Copilot be used as a search engine&pc=GD01&form=GDAVST&ptag=3601
Apparently, you do not. Want more???
p.s. I identified the Copilot when I used it (for the first time). I am way ahead of you!
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is pathetic. Write4u really has become a bot, simply regurgitating what comes up after keywords that trigger him.
Well, no skin off my nose. He's already on ignore; I can just stop clicking on 'view ignored content'.
Well, no skin off my nose. He's already on ignore; I can just stop clicking on 'view ignored content'.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Being that you are not contributing, should I care?
Write4U:
All we can be sure about is that if you understand the concept of AI at a "deeper level" than what we think, you regularly fail to convey your deep understanding in any of your posts.
Personally, I doubt that it is solely your ability to communicate that is the root of the problem here. This is a judgment based on conversations I have had with you over a period of years, now.
I would not necessarily be this blunt under ordinary circumstances, but in this case you did ask directly for feedback of this kind.
Do you now agree with DaveC that Copilot is not a search engine?
Every time you post something here, I get insights into what and how your brain thinks (or fails to think) about things. This is what communication between human beings does for us.
Anything is possible, but in my judgment it is highly unlikely.
All we can be sure about is that if you understand the concept of AI at a "deeper level" than what we think, you regularly fail to convey your deep understanding in any of your posts.
Personally, I doubt that it is solely your ability to communicate that is the root of the problem here. This is a judgment based on conversations I have had with you over a period of years, now.
I would not necessarily be this blunt under ordinary circumstances, but in this case you did ask directly for feedback of this kind.
No, but the point is that you countered Pinball's assertion that the brain was not a computer by pointing to the existence of a theory that suggests it might be, as if the existence of that theory negates the assertion that the brain is not a computer. It doesn't. By pointing to the theory at best you can say that it is not question that has been adequately answered either way. But saying "If not-X then why Z?" is to imply that Z demonstrates X, and thus the assertion not-X is incorrect.
To be clear, an AI does not "know" anything. It is not self-aware, has no "beliefs", and simply regurgitates information in manner determined by its linguistic algorithms. What it regurgitates might be true, but that is just information, not knowledge. And since this is the philosophy forum, probably best to be more precise. The chatbot is trained on information from the internet, and is thus only as accurate in the information it provides as that underlying source. It dresses up the filtering and regurgitation of that information in a manner mimicking conversational language.
As to whether it is a search enging or not, and since you seem to think that what it says about itself is of value:
Me: Are you a search engine?
Copilot: Ah, I see you’re curious! While I’m not a search engine myself, I can certainly help you find information or answer any questions you might have.
source: Copilot (https://copilot.microsoft.com/)
I would like to say that this hopefully clears up the matter but, alas, it doesn't, as I asked it again and it said that it wasn't one in the traditional sense. So, if nothing else, it doesn't flee from being contradictory.
However, bear in mind that it used to be called Bing Chat. It was an LLM front-end that utilised the Bing search engine. It is called Copilot now, but still utilises the Bing search engine. So as to whether it is correct to call it a search-engine, that might be like calling a Ferrari an internal combustion engine. It has one. It uses one. But it isn't one. It's different.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Question: What is the square root of 4?
Copilot: The square root of 4 is 2. When we calculate the square root of a number, we’re essentially finding a value that, when multiplied by itself, gives us the original number. In this case, 2 multiplied by itself equals 4, making it a perfect square number.
Copilot has misled you. 4 has two square roots: +2 and -2.
You cannot trust it to provide correct answers.
If you regurgitate responses from Copilot without insight into the question, you are acting as a dumb mouthpiece to a dumb language algorithm.
Using Copilot doesn't make you smarter; it makes you dumber.
If I wanted to have a conversation with a dumb chatbot, I'd go to MS Copilot and engage with it.
This is a discussion forum; which requires humans. Too bad there's no human discussion happening here.
Copilot: The square root of 4 is 2. When we calculate the square root of a number, we’re essentially finding a value that, when multiplied by itself, gives us the original number. In this case, 2 multiplied by itself equals 4, making it a perfect square number.
Copilot has misled you. 4 has two square roots: +2 and -2.
You cannot trust it to provide correct answers.
If you regurgitate responses from Copilot without insight into the question, you are acting as a dumb mouthpiece to a dumb language algorithm.
Using Copilot doesn't make you smarter; it makes you dumber.
If I wanted to have a conversation with a dumb chatbot, I'd go to MS Copilot and engage with it.
This is a discussion forum; which requires humans. Too bad there's no human discussion happening here.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But that addresses only subjective (anthropomorphized) knowledge, i.e. "belief". Beliefs are human qualities.
The universe does not work on "belief". It acts on information.
It is the system (object) that has innate knowledge. It always has correct information. There are plenty of organisms that have no self-awareness or beliefs, but they do have "innate knowledge". The formation of regular patterns suggests an ordering process?
I agree. But a search engine does not discriminate between true and false either.
It is up to the investigator to separate the "chaff from the wheat".
But that is not the correct question. It answered truthfully to the question as posited.
This was my query:
Ha, but that's not contradictory, it's discretionary.I would like to say that this hopefully clears up the matter but, alas, it doesn't, as I asked it again and it said that it wasn't one in the traditional sense. So, if nothing else, it doesn't flee from being contradictory.
True, and according to Copilot itself, it may be better! It can certainly be used as one and may even offer greater choice of sources based on the range of parameters.
It's definitely more "versatile", no ?
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
OK, go have a discussion with a search engine. Nobody is suggesting having a conversation with an AI to perform a search, except as a means of setting more precise search parameters.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Copilot misled you. I never asked it what the square root of 4 is.
But Copilot made a correction on your query.
Copilot: If you specifically want the negative square root, you would write: −V4 = −2
Would you agree that was a useful answer?
Last edited:
Subjective does not mean anthropomorphised. And whatever category you're trying to put "belief" in, knowledge is the same. It is, at its root, a justified true belief - i.e. a subset of beliefs. Non-sentient entities can not hold knowledge. They can hold data and information. Not knowledge.
Yes, but information is not knowledge.
No, it has no knowledge. It has information.
Knowledge is a human construct. Formation of regular patterns might suggest an ordering process, but so what? An ordering process does not suggest knowledge. Please stop trying to twist words to suit your agenda, changing their meaning, rather than using words as they are more correctly understood.
It's not about discriminating between true and false, but about whether it is searching the internet or not. A "search engine" is something that trawls the live internet. Bing is a search engine. Copilot uses Bing.
Why is it not "the correct question" when trying to establish if Copilot is a search engine. Noone is saying that it can't be used as one. Just as noone is saying that a Ferrari can't be used as a generator to power your house. But it would be wrong to call a Ferrari a generator.
So you do agree that it is not a search engine?
Hmmm. An AI claims to be better than the normal. Whodathunkit!
Is Copilot "better" than a search engine at being a search engine? No. That would be like saying that a Ferrari is a better internal combustion engine than the internal combustion engine it uses.
- Status