I asked it directly. It didn’t know and stated it has never had version numbers. I pointed out that news articles differentiate 1.0 and 2.0. It agreed but didn’t say what it was. I asked it again directly, it said it was 2.0.
Hard to believe something that feels like it’s lying to you all the time. I asked it about a topic that I’m in and have a website about, it told me the website was hypothetical. It got it wrong twice, even after it agreed it was wrong, and then told me the wrong thing again.
Can you ask perplexity.ai your question about ceramic firing and see what you get? Perplexity offers prompts to move you along towards your answer.
I asked perplexity that same question. It kind of did better, it made no errors in temperature’s like the others do. It just left those details out, initially. After asking follow-up questions it answered correctly, but also gave some unnecessary and unrelated information.
I didn’t use any of the prompts, I was asking about saggar firing processes and temps, the prompts were just ceramics related.
My area has 40 years of studies behind it with a heap of science online. I’m always surprised that AI do so badly with it. If I can work it out by reading through study after study, AI should piss it in.
The good thing about perplexity is that it sources itself so you can check it. Others just give you the answer and if you don’t know much, you dont know if it’s wrong or not (better than no sources, I feel). I’ve also asked someone who is the world leader in my field to figure out when it starts giving completely wrong answers and in what area.
Is what you’re searching more of an in-field technique or would there be webpages or studies devoted to it?
Just tried it out, withe some questions about ceramic firing in a electric kiln. Seems to have similar accuracy to chatgpt, maybe closer to gpt4.
It’s not clear when using it what version it’s on, so this may have been Claude 1, I’m unsure where to check.
I asked it directly. It didn’t know and stated it has never had version numbers. I pointed out that news articles differentiate 1.0 and 2.0. It agreed but didn’t say what it was. I asked it again directly, it said it was 2.0.
Hard to believe something that feels like it’s lying to you all the time. I asked it about a topic that I’m in and have a website about, it told me the website was hypothetical. It got it wrong twice, even after it agreed it was wrong, and then told me the wrong thing again.
Can you ask perplexity.ai your question about ceramic firing and see what you get? Perplexity offers prompts to move you along towards your answer.
I asked perplexity that same question. It kind of did better, it made no errors in temperature’s like the others do. It just left those details out, initially. After asking follow-up questions it answered correctly, but also gave some unnecessary and unrelated information.
I didn’t use any of the prompts, I was asking about saggar firing processes and temps, the prompts were just ceramics related.
My area has 40 years of studies behind it with a heap of science online. I’m always surprised that AI do so badly with it. If I can work it out by reading through study after study, AI should piss it in.
The good thing about perplexity is that it sources itself so you can check it. Others just give you the answer and if you don’t know much, you dont know if it’s wrong or not (better than no sources, I feel). I’ve also asked someone who is the world leader in my field to figure out when it starts giving completely wrong answers and in what area.
Is what you’re searching more of an in-field technique or would there be webpages or studies devoted to it?