[deleted by user]

  • utopiah@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Can’t it source other LLM outputs as “verified source” and thus still say whatever sounds good, like any LLM? Providing “technical” verification, e.g. SHA, gives no insurance about the content itself being from a reputable source. I don’t think adding confidence and sourcing changes anything, the user STILL has to verify that whatever is provided is coherent and a third party is actually a good source. Thanks for making the process public though, doing better than OpenAI does.

      • utopiah@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Isn’t it “source: model” basically roulette? We go back to the initial problem. Also anything else that is not model might also be hallucinated if at any point the string that gives back “source:” goes through the model.

    • JustinTheGM@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Fair, but that’s the same problem human thinkers face. Faulty inputs == faulty outputs. You should always be validating your sources.

      • utopiah@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Right but if one person keeps on giving me wrong answers, knowingly or not, my distrust in them in not linear. They’ll have to “earn” it back and it’s going to be very challenging. If they do learn though, then it might come back faster. In this setup I have no guarantee of any progress. There no “one” in there trying to fix any mistake.