you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 7 months ago* (6 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] [S] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)