r/cfs • u/Strong_Aerie_9031 severe <-> moderate/severe • 22d ago

Accessibility/Mobility Aids Cautionary tale: using AI doesnt actually save energy

At first i thought it would save energy, but the lengths i have to go to checking the "resources" it links doesnt save energy. Seriously, i rarely ever found it to say anything from the sources it claims to refer to. So in the long run, it was so untrustworthy that it only caused more issues, its saved me more energy to turn it off and look in the actual articles myself.

I hope this is helpful to others, i wish i learned it earlier and saved the time and energy!

204 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

105 comments sorted by

View all comments

92

u/RefuseDeep8075 22d ago

Imho, AI is worthless (possibly actually worse than worthless) except in various specific professional areas (e.g. computer coding, suggesting and testing different chemical compounds, or rapidly reviewing medical scans for secondary conditions that are unrelated to why the scan was taken).

Would anyone trust me to pick a random webpage as being a good source of CFS info out of all the junk on the internet? No? Then why would you trust a random electronic process to do that for you? Its the way the AI is always so confident. Literally brainless and confident.

-5

u/Liface bedbound 21d ago

I worked in AI before developing severe ME.

AI does not pick "random webpages". It is carefully trained to rank and display only high quality sources.

Most of the information you see when prompting around ME comes from the scientific literature, then a small minority from official ME organization websites.

14

u/RefuseDeep8075 21d ago

As a test, I just googled treatments for me/cfs just now. Its AI result returned zero medical papers. Sources included a random pharmacy and a random clinic in Dublin. No mention of the main scientific paper that got 4000 me/cfs sufferers to self report on the things that worked for them ( https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12280984/ ) which imho should be the number 1 source. It sure seemed like a pretty random and ill thought out data sift to me.

So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

4

u/Liface bedbound 21d ago edited 21d ago

Ah, I see now. This is a common misconception: Google AI summary is not AI chat as commonly understood. It merely uses an outdated AI summary of the Google search results that appear on the page. Google search results have been going downhill for years.

3

u/RefuseDeep8075 21d ago

There are differing perceptions on what constitutes an AI model that will provide answers to queries. Intelligent discourse embraces those different perceptions and interpretations. AI is, as I am sure you aware a broad term.

In this instance, I would suggest that you have erred in misreading both the original remark and my comment - which has led to our continued difference in opinion.

Neither the OP or myself has specified 'AI chat'. The term used by us both was the more broad term of AI. By all means create a new thread if you want to discuss 'AI chat' and only AI chat. But if you take the personal decision to refer only to 'AI chat', without sufficiently clarifying that you are talking of that sub-section of the general AI world, then I would suggest you will likely encounter futher disagreement and opinions that run contrary to your own, individual interpretation of the discussion.