[deleted by user]

  • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m probably going to give this a try, but I think you should make it clearer for those who aren’t going to dig through the code that it’s still LLMs all the way down and can still have issues - it’s just there are LLMs double-checking other LLMs work to try to find those issues. There are still no guarantees since it’s still all LLMs.

    • skisnow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      I haven’t tried this tool specifically, but I do on occasion ask both Gemini and ChatGPT’s search-connected models to cite sources when claiming stuff and it doesn’t seem to even slightly stop them bullshitting and claiming a source says something that it doesn’t.

        • skisnow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          How does having a key solve anything? Its not that the source doesn’t exist, it’s that the source says something different to the LLM’s interpretation of it.

            • skisnow@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              The hash proves which bytes the answer was grounded in, should I ever want to check it. If the model misreads or misinterprets, you can point to the source and say “the mistake is here, not in my memory of what the source was.”.

              Eh. This reads very much like your headline is massively over-promising clickbait. If your fix for an LLM bullshitting is that you have to check all its sources then you haven’t fixed LLM bullshitting

              If it does that more than twice, straight in the bin. I have zero chill any more.

              That’s… not how any of this works…