this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
1872 points (98.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
7670 readers
2960 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If i have a question i want an answer not a bunch of links where i might find the answer to my question if i read all the pages and try to connect the dots. So yes, i want all of it.
This is honestly kinda scary to read. You want an intransparent software that can by definition not think to try and check what facts are correct instead of doing it yourself? And that's if we're assuming there's no intentional fact skewing in the software.
It is certainly the most convenient interface, and that's what makes it enticing.
I don't think I'll ever trust one source enough to use it like that, though.
So you also never use google for instance or do you first compare the results of google, DuckDuckGo, ecosia,… before actually open a page? Interesting, i wonder how long it takes before you find something on the web.
Where did i say i want intransparent software that can by definition not think to try and check what facts are correct instead of doing it yourself?
Thats unfortunately the only way to get what you say you want. Unless you're paying a human to do the web searching for you.
So you don't use any search engine at all i understand. For instance, are you confident that google is fully transparent and gives you only checked facts? No intentional skewing towards favouring websites that pay for a high ranking?
Maybe the difference between me and you is that i always check the facts …for example where they come from. If the answer is given by a human or machine makes no difference for me. The machine though gives me the links where it derived the information from… not many humans do that.
So you either crawl back in fear fuelled by a lack of understanding or you embrace new tools when they come and learn how to work with them, what can be trusted and not, what improvements can be made. 🤷🏼
Example:
I get an answer AND a list where the answer is based on. Personally, i don’t understand your issue at all.
Imma ignore your blatant rudeness and strawman based ad hominems in the above comment for a sec
So, if you're going to check each of those sources, what's the advantage of those over using searx? Basically, if you're going to do your due diligence, you're not even going to have to look at the generated summary at all. Searx has the additional advantage of being open source, so you can go check how it does what it does. That's impossible to do with AI by its very definition- even the devs can't know why it does what it does.
Just responding to you with examples. The rudeness is yours.
I think its fine as long its not forced on users that don't want it
There are always options 🤷🏼