AI chatbots such as Microsoft\u2019s ChatGPT and Google\u2019s Bard (and now, Elon Musk\u2019s Grok) are familiar to many.<\/p>
In astoundingly assured English, instantly and free, they answer questions with the slick confidence of a grifter politician.<\/p>
Their immediate distillation of the millions of words on the subject they find online, into text of length and style you specify, is very impressive.<\/p>
But superficially. Because, like a populist politico on TV, it\u2019s vague, boilerplate stuff. Worst of all, chatbots make things up and most readers won\u2019t know the truth from cobblers.<\/p>
York’s city walls are a must-ride<\/h2>ChatGPT and Bard recommended cycling on York’s city walls. – travellinglight \/ Getty Images<\/figcaption><\/figure>I know about cycling in East Yorkshire, where I live. So I asked ChatGPT and Bard to write some web pages, blog posts and magazine articles about it.<\/p>
The results were at best fuzzy, misleading and useless; at worst, utter nonsense and in fact worse than useless.<\/p>
For example, both chatbots recommended York\u2019s city walls as a must-ride. Nope.<\/p>
They\u2019re medieval walkways (dating back to, er, Victorian times): physically impossible to cycle on, never mind legally or practically.<\/p>
Similarly, both programs suggested cycling around York city centre, not to mention that\u2019s not allowed during the day, when \u2018Footstreets\u2019 regulations ban it.<\/p>
Not that you can ride up the bolt-shearingly cobbled Shambles anyway: it\u2019s crowded with selfie-snapper tourists.<\/p>
Bard thinks you can cycle around York Museum Gardens. Oh no you can\u2019t. ChatGPT maintains you can\u2019t cycle over the Humber Bridge. Oh yes, you can: it\u2019s the second-longest cyclable single-span bridge in the world.<\/p>
About East Yorkshire generally, both were full of baloney. Bard picked out the Wolds Way as its top \u2018cycle route\u2019.<\/p>
Um, that\u2019s a long-distance footpath, illegal for bikes (it also listed the 140-mile Wolds Cycle Route \u2013 fair enough, although it claims it\u2019s only 50 miles.)<\/p>
ChatGPT blatantly made up a \u2018Pocklington Canal Railway\u2019 heritage line that takes bikes. No such thing exists. Bard suggests you ride to Driffield for its \u2018racecourse\u2019 (there isn\u2019t one) and so it went on\u2026<\/p>
Amid all the random hammering, they occasionally hit the nail on the head. ChatGPT mentioned York Knavesmire\u2019s racecourse perimeter road that forms an informal velodrome: that\u2019s good.<\/p>
It also pointed out York\u2019s excellent Solar System bike route \u2013 but doesn\u2019t know there are two (the other is in York Uni).<\/p>
But any writer submitting stuff like this would be advised to find alternative employment, such as delivering takeaways. Which would offer more job security, at least.<\/p>
Does it matter if AI gets it wrong? <\/h2>![\"Cyclist](\"https:\/\/c02.purpledshub.com\/uploads\/sites\/39\/2024\/05\/When-Worlds-Collide-02.jpg\")
Trust cycling recommendations made by humans, not bots. – Joe Cotterill \/ Our Media<\/figcaption><\/figure>Okay, okay. It\u2019s fun, and easy, to catch out ChatGPT and Bard on one\u2019s own specialist subject. But does it matter?<\/p>
Yes it does. Because some websites have already started using AI chatbots to write their content.<\/p>
Given a choice between commissioning a knowledgeable, professional writer, and a chatbot that produces crap, but instantly and free\u2026 well, we know what would usually win.<\/p>
Sadly, we have the prospect of millions of web and print pages being generated this way.<\/p>
Pages that are smudged, watered-down, summarised versions of existing pages.<\/p>
Pages that will in turn serve as the basis for future chatbot larceny, and so propagate their reinforced untruths even more.<\/p>
Maybe there\u2019s hope. Genuine content written by actual people may become more precious.<\/p>
I know about cycling in East Yorkshire, where I live. So I asked ChatGPT and Bard to write some web pages, blog posts and magazine articles about it.<\/p>
The results were at best fuzzy, misleading and useless; at worst, utter nonsense and in fact worse than useless.<\/p>
For example, both chatbots recommended York\u2019s city walls as a must-ride. Nope.<\/p>
They\u2019re medieval walkways (dating back to, er, Victorian times): physically impossible to cycle on, never mind legally or practically.<\/p>
Similarly, both programs suggested cycling around York city centre, not to mention that\u2019s not allowed during the day, when \u2018Footstreets\u2019 regulations ban it.<\/p>
Not that you can ride up the bolt-shearingly cobbled Shambles anyway: it\u2019s crowded with selfie-snapper tourists.<\/p>
Bard thinks you can cycle around York Museum Gardens. Oh no you can\u2019t. ChatGPT maintains you can\u2019t cycle over the Humber Bridge. Oh yes, you can: it\u2019s the second-longest cyclable single-span bridge in the world.<\/p>
About East Yorkshire generally, both were full of baloney. Bard picked out the Wolds Way as its top \u2018cycle route\u2019.<\/p>
Um, that\u2019s a long-distance footpath, illegal for bikes (it also listed the 140-mile Wolds Cycle Route \u2013 fair enough, although it claims it\u2019s only 50 miles.)<\/p>
ChatGPT blatantly made up a \u2018Pocklington Canal Railway\u2019 heritage line that takes bikes. No such thing exists. Bard suggests you ride to Driffield for its \u2018racecourse\u2019 (there isn\u2019t one) and so it went on\u2026<\/p>
Amid all the random hammering, they occasionally hit the nail on the head. ChatGPT mentioned York Knavesmire\u2019s racecourse perimeter road that forms an informal velodrome: that\u2019s good.<\/p>
It also pointed out York\u2019s excellent Solar System bike route \u2013 but doesn\u2019t know there are two (the other is in York Uni).<\/p>
But any writer submitting stuff like this would be advised to find alternative employment, such as delivering takeaways. Which would offer more job security, at least.<\/p>
Does it matter if AI gets it wrong? <\/h2>Trust cycling recommendations made by humans, not bots. – Joe Cotterill \/ Our Media<\/figcaption><\/figure>Okay, okay. It\u2019s fun, and easy, to catch out ChatGPT and Bard on one\u2019s own specialist subject. But does it matter?<\/p>
Yes it does. Because some websites have already started using AI chatbots to write their content.<\/p>
Given a choice between commissioning a knowledgeable, professional writer, and a chatbot that produces crap, but instantly and free\u2026 well, we know what would usually win.<\/p>
Sadly, we have the prospect of millions of web and print pages being generated this way.<\/p>
Pages that are smudged, watered-down, summarised versions of existing pages.<\/p>
Pages that will in turn serve as the basis for future chatbot larceny, and so propagate their reinforced untruths even more.<\/p>
Maybe there\u2019s hope. Genuine content written by actual people may become more precious.<\/p>
Okay, okay. It\u2019s fun, and easy, to catch out ChatGPT and Bard on one\u2019s own specialist subject. But does it matter?<\/p>
Yes it does. Because some websites have already started using AI chatbots to write their content.<\/p>
Given a choice between commissioning a knowledgeable, professional writer, and a chatbot that produces crap, but instantly and free\u2026 well, we know what would usually win.<\/p>
Sadly, we have the prospect of millions of web and print pages being generated this way.<\/p>
Pages that are smudged, watered-down, summarised versions of existing pages.<\/p>
Pages that will in turn serve as the basis for future chatbot larceny, and so propagate their reinforced untruths even more.<\/p>
Maybe there\u2019s hope. Genuine content written by actual people may become more precious.<\/p>