Comment by kayo_20211030

This may have hit the nail on the head about the weaknesses of LLM's.

They're going to regurgitate something not so much based on facts, but based on things that are accessible as perceived facts. Those might be right, but they might be wrong also; and no one can tell without doing the hard work of checking original sources. Many of what are considered accepted facts, and also accessible to LLM harvesting, are at best derived facts, often mediated by motivated individuals, and published to accessible sources by "people with an interest".

The weightings used by any AI should be based on the facts, and not the compounded volume of derived, "mediated", or "directed" facts - simply, because they're not really facts; they're reports.

It all seems like dumber, lazier search engine stuff. Honestly, what do I know about Paul Newman? But, Joanne Woodward and others who knew and worked with him should be weighted as being, at least, slightly more credible that others; no matter how many text patterns "catch the match" flow.