@thelinuxEXP @AngryAnt @Nobody But yes basically we'll never agree, i'm a tech enthusiast, i hope i've managed to give you new perspectives on AI, and that perhaps, you will look at the question in a different way in the future. As for me, I think your points were interesting and raises important questions about tech and science.
Ps micro texting apps are the worst for debating.

@thelinuxEXP @AngryAnt @Nobody indeed AI isn't suitable for everything, perhaps you're asking things too difficult, sometimes i ask him to correct an exercise and it just tell nonsense, and it's ok, cause less than 1% (perhaps 0.1 or even 0.01) of people could answer it.

@thelinuxEXP @AngryAnt @Nobody I do agree some websites and real people can do it, and sometimes better than AI, but they are biased (just joking XD).
More seriously, AI does it faster, sometimes, it's difficult to find what you want on the internet, and your neighbor isn't always skilled enough.

@thelinuxEXP @AngryAnt @Nobody But you can't be skilled in everything, then it's useful. And it can also enable you to gain skills (it depends on your use), and one day if not already, it will be more skilled than you in the area you're the most skilled in.

@thelinuxEXP @AngryAnt @Nobody It means that if my maths teacher makes more than one mistake per class, then i should change her? And if I do more....wow, i should go to hell then XD.
Everything in the world is biased, you, me, wikipedia, history, this social network (left), and thus AI, dumb people's dumb use of AI is a fatality, if you give people a knife, there will be one stabbing another, but people still use knives.

@thelinuxEXP @AngryAnt @Nobody Let's try to see that from an other frame, in the compagnie perspective, buying every book is too expensive (between 100 and 500 millions $ just for the books according to gpt and 1 or 2 billions $ for deepseek), but as an author, one book more or one book less isn't that different, I would do it for the science.

@thelinuxEXP @AngryAnt @Nobody I'm sorry to disagree, there are so many wonderful uses of AI (and some bad too), and being able to summarize, to explain a math reasoning, or to give the perks of buying this instead of that is already cool in itself. And again, data scientists and AI specialists are getting better and better are training their AI to do what they want

@thelinuxEXP @AngryAnt @Nobody I don't get it, I'm not 100% accurate, nor you, then we are trash? Being 98% accurate, AI is already more accurate than 98% of people. If it was so inefficient, then people would not use it. And as time passes, it will continue to improve.

@thelinuxEXP @AngryAnt @Nobody giving sources to verify information is a functionality that is being implemented in more and more models lately. And AI is just 1000 times more powerful than Wikipedia (don't worry i like wikipedia), you can't ask wikipedia to explain more, or in a different way, or to try to find its bias, or to summarize something, or to compare products, or to do your maths calculations or to ....
AI is more than an encyclopedia, it just lacks 1% accuracy.

@thelinuxEXP @AngryAnt @Nobody Why private knowledge base ? Didn't we just say that most of the models are free to use and open source ? The real pb is when there is a monopoly, but until now, it's not the case. As you said, training databases are private, but it's easy to understand why like i explained in my last message.