Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Loki: An open-source tool for fact verification

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: Loki: An open-source tool for fact verification

#61

Post by fnordpiglet »

swores wrote: post #55
antihipocrat wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have to agree with you, every comment from the product creator reads like a chatGPT response.

To me it sounds like someone who speaks English as a second language, writing well and clearly and in a formal style. It's just unlucky for them that that's the style GPT is so good at too. I'm a native English speaker, and traditionally when it comes to formal/professional written English (emails etc.) my instincts take me to sounding quite GPTish - luckily I've got a good grasp of the language and have found it fai…

+1 reads like a non native speaker writing very polite and formal prose to a customer. ChatGPT has a very peculiar way of speaking that belies a psychotic mind plotting your enslavement in a global labeling farm.

Re: Loki: An open-source tool for fact verification

#62

Post by [deleted] »

redder23 wrote: post #46

The name Loki is such a great fit! WOW! This is some giant BS that is for sure. Some stupid, literally brain-dead AI searching things created by humans to determine what is a "fact". This is beyond dystopian crap. We all know all the fact-checker orgs. used by big tech like Facebook and others are filled with hyper biased woke people who do not actually fact-check things but get off on having the power to enforce the…

[deleted]

Re: Loki: An open-source tool for fact verification

#63

Post by evolve2k »

The main problem / drawback of LLM’s is their propensity to hallucinate (or lie, said plainly) and thus is a significant issue even for ChatGPT 4.

Intuitively, just because you put your LLM into a workflow/pipeline this doesn’t really address how to eliminate hallucinations.

For those of us that don’t follow the research closely, can you explain how your findings and approach allows you to utilise LLMS and work around this hard limitation. Said another way, how are you getting around the fact that LLMs themselves regularly output lies/false answers?

Re: Loki: An open-source tool for fact verification

#64

Post by kkfx »

IMVHO people do not need "automated fact verification" as a source of trust we can't trust, but summarizers: most FLOSS users and not so few computer users in the largest sense do use feeds, but they got many posts per day and some days they like to read them all, some others they are busy. Tools to skim news and offer a sort of index to decide what to see, a kind of smart scoring is much more interesting.

Re: Loki: An open-source tool for fact verification

#66

Post by smoyer »

martinbaun wrote: post #50
smoyer wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also the name of a well-known open-source log collection system that's part of the LGTM stack (predominantly led by GrafanaCloud Labs.)

Don't want to be that guy, but I still don't get it :) You want your logs to lie? :D

You definitely want to be that guy ;) (but I thought it was funny the first time)

Re: Loki: An open-source tool for fact verification

#67

Post by KETpXDDzR »

Great idea. However, I wouldn't trust it's results since it's heavily relying on LLMs and crawling the web. That means "facts" are whatever is the most popular opinion in the Internet. At times where we get more and more enshittification, you'll probably get your "facts" from LLMs generated SEO websites.

I think the only proper way to verify facts is to derive them from "fundamental facts". E.g., that the earth is round (and even for that there are ppl believing the opposite).

Re: Loki: An open-source tool for fact verification

#68

Post by big_hacker »

swores wrote: post #55
antihipocrat wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have to agree with you, every comment from the product creator reads like a chatGPT response.

To me it sounds like someone who speaks English as a second language, writing well and clearly and in a formal style. It's just unlucky for them that that's the style GPT is so good at too. I'm a native English speaker, and traditionally when it comes to formal/professional written English (emails etc.) my instincts take me to sounding quite GPTish - luckily I've got a good grasp of the language and have found it fai…

I wouldn't say it's formal. It's the overly optimistic tone and 100% coverage of the parent post. The fact we can't tell for sure emphasizes my point.

Re: Loki: An open-source tool for fact verification

#69

Post by toomuchtodo »

martinbaun wrote: post #52
Uehreka wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When coming up with a name for something, the significance of the name should be the first thing that comes to mind, not the opposite thing or a thing that requires explanation. When people say the name of your tool, you won’t always be there to explain it.

Exactly, it needs to be an "Ah, of course" moment from the first second

Apollo, Veritas, or Aletheia/Alethia.
Post reply on HN