Yeah, the internet seems like a big poison pill. Training on the whole internet feels like citing the National Enquirer (or the Daily Mail?) for a school essay. Having an archive of "curated" training data seems like it is going to be important. Otherwise you need "AS" (artificial skepticism) introduced into future models. ("But I read it on the internet!", ha ha.) Or perhaps there are ways to bucket training data su…
> Training on the whole internet feels like citing the National Enquirer It's not, though, because the refutations are in the training data too. This isn't actually the problem being described. The weights in the LLM are fine. It's that the task the LLM is being asked to do is to search and summarize new content that isn't in its training data. And it does it too much like a naive reader and not enough like a cynical…
If it fails at that then it is a pretty significant problem. As you say earlier "the refutations are in the training data too", then the LLM should in fact be able to use "both sides" and land with a little better confidence when presented with new data.
(Hopefully your point regarding prompting issues is resolved then.)