In the 1950’s every adman, business exec, politician, and others who had no idea of what they were talking about touted “Atomic”. It was the “Atomic Age” and everything had to be “atomic”.
Before the year 2000, the ignoranti were screeching “Y2K” again with the same level of ignorance.
Today, everything being sold is labelled “AI” with virtually no understanding of what it really means or just how artificial the term is.
So, Elliott is correct.Just as you shouldn’t trust a GPS device that might possibly lead you over a cliff or a dead end road, you should make certain that the information you get from an ‘artificial’ or human source, for that matter, can be verified.
Heck, the GPS installed in my Ford has taken me down logging roads and into dead ends. I have little faith in being told what to do by some non-human device. I might do a cursory search when traveling but I always do my own research to back it up.
The first time I tried AI to generate a short history of a local lighthouse, it contained so many errors it was laughable! No way I would trust it to plan a costly vacation.
AI should not make a person’s travel plans without being double-checked because even the most advanced systems can misinterpret preferences, overlook important details, or rely on outdated information. Travel involves many variables—such as budget, schedules, visa requirements, or personal comfort—that may not be fully captured by an algorithm. A small mistake, like booking the wrong date, choosing an inconvenient connection, or overlooking accessibility needs, can lead to wasted time, extra costs, and unnecessary stress. Double-checking ensures that the final plans align with personal needs and priorities while reducing the risk of unpleasant surprises.
Is clear from this experience that you canT always trust what any AI says. However I have found it is the old garbage in garbage out. I have found even using chat GPT 5 if I am not extremely specific in my questions I will get the wrong answer. We are going to be in Palermo and I initially asked for restaurants within 10 minutes of our hotel. I had to redo it and ask it 10 minutes walking distance from our hotel that avoids bAd neighborhoods. 1 has to be extremely logical and specific and sometimes ask the same questions several times. I have found it to be very helpful for Sicily. I would stick to plain chat CHATGPT 5 and I avoid the AI's from travel agencies like TripAdvisor etc. because that I do not trust
Anyone who claims to care about their "carbon footprint" shouldn't be using AI!
And yet, mysteriously, everyone is going all-in on AI—both conservatives and libs—without giving any thought to the environment.
I have never used AI and I hope to avoid it at all costs. I already consume enough energy and have no need to waste more fossil-fuel derived power. I listened to a podcast with an energy expert who said just one AI prompt uses vastly more dirty energy than a google prompt.
By 2026 AI data centers in the US are projected to use as much energy as the entire country of Sweden.
Tech bros are pushing for more fossil fuel development and have already admitted that they won't hit their CO2 emission targets. This should be a big deal, but it isn't.
In the 1950’s every adman, business exec, politician, and others who had no idea of what they were talking about touted “Atomic”. It was the “Atomic Age” and everything had to be “atomic”.
Before the year 2000, the ignoranti were screeching “Y2K” again with the same level of ignorance.
Today, everything being sold is labelled “AI” with virtually no understanding of what it really means or just how artificial the term is.
So, Elliott is correct.Just as you shouldn’t trust a GPS device that might possibly lead you over a cliff or a dead end road, you should make certain that the information you get from an ‘artificial’ or human source, for that matter, can be verified.
Yes, new isn't necessarily better. So true.
Heck, the GPS installed in my Ford has taken me down logging roads and into dead ends. I have little faith in being told what to do by some non-human device. I might do a cursory search when traveling but I always do my own research to back it up.
The first time I tried AI to generate a short history of a local lighthouse, it contained so many errors it was laughable! No way I would trust it to plan a costly vacation.
AI should not make a person’s travel plans without being double-checked because even the most advanced systems can misinterpret preferences, overlook important details, or rely on outdated information. Travel involves many variables—such as budget, schedules, visa requirements, or personal comfort—that may not be fully captured by an algorithm. A small mistake, like booking the wrong date, choosing an inconvenient connection, or overlooking accessibility needs, can lead to wasted time, extra costs, and unnecessary stress. Double-checking ensures that the final plans align with personal needs and priorities while reducing the risk of unpleasant surprises.
If we need to double check everything AI does, then why use it at all? At this point, there is really no need to use this energy-consuming technology.
Is clear from this experience that you canT always trust what any AI says. However I have found it is the old garbage in garbage out. I have found even using chat GPT 5 if I am not extremely specific in my questions I will get the wrong answer. We are going to be in Palermo and I initially asked for restaurants within 10 minutes of our hotel. I had to redo it and ask it 10 minutes walking distance from our hotel that avoids bAd neighborhoods. 1 has to be extremely logical and specific and sometimes ask the same questions several times. I have found it to be very helpful for Sicily. I would stick to plain chat CHATGPT 5 and I avoid the AI's from travel agencies like TripAdvisor etc. because that I do not trust
Anyone who claims to care about their "carbon footprint" shouldn't be using AI!
And yet, mysteriously, everyone is going all-in on AI—both conservatives and libs—without giving any thought to the environment.
I have never used AI and I hope to avoid it at all costs. I already consume enough energy and have no need to waste more fossil-fuel derived power. I listened to a podcast with an energy expert who said just one AI prompt uses vastly more dirty energy than a google prompt.
By 2026 AI data centers in the US are projected to use as much energy as the entire country of Sweden.
Tech bros are pushing for more fossil fuel development and have already admitted that they won't hit their CO2 emission targets. This should be a big deal, but it isn't.
Why not?