Comment by lionkor 1 month ago You don't know when it's wrong. 3 comments lionkor Reply fc417fc802 1 month ago People used to say the same things about Wikipedia. They weren't wrong. Still aren't. But it sort of misses the point. lionkor 1 month ago That's an entirely different system because it's quite transparent fc417fc802 1 month ago Sure, well cited LLM output is better than opaque. You still don't immediately know when it's wrong though. Same as Wikipedia.Despite that, both are incredibly useful if used correctly.
fc417fc802 1 month ago People used to say the same things about Wikipedia. They weren't wrong. Still aren't. But it sort of misses the point. lionkor 1 month ago That's an entirely different system because it's quite transparent fc417fc802 1 month ago Sure, well cited LLM output is better than opaque. You still don't immediately know when it's wrong though. Same as Wikipedia.Despite that, both are incredibly useful if used correctly.
lionkor 1 month ago That's an entirely different system because it's quite transparent fc417fc802 1 month ago Sure, well cited LLM output is better than opaque. You still don't immediately know when it's wrong though. Same as Wikipedia.Despite that, both are incredibly useful if used correctly.
fc417fc802 1 month ago Sure, well cited LLM output is better than opaque. You still don't immediately know when it's wrong though. Same as Wikipedia.Despite that, both are incredibly useful if used correctly.
People used to say the same things about Wikipedia. They weren't wrong. Still aren't. But it sort of misses the point.
That's an entirely different system because it's quite transparent
Sure, well cited LLM output is better than opaque. You still don't immediately know when it's wrong though. Same as Wikipedia.
Despite that, both are incredibly useful if used correctly.