111–120 of 306 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It did exist but got removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio... Quite an omission to not even check for that and it make me think that was done intentionally.
Removed because it was an AI generated article which cited made up sources. Hey, that gives me an idea though, subagents which check whether sources cited exist, and create them whole cloth if they don't
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is likely because of the knowledge cutoff. I have seen a few cases before of "hallucinations" that turned out to be things that did exist, but no longer do.
The fix for this is for the AI to double-check all links before providing them to the user. I frequently ask ChatGPT to double check that references actually exist when it gives me them. It should be built in!
Pre prompting to cite sources is obviously a better way of going about things.
I am curious if LLMs evangelists understand how off-putting it is when they knee-jerk rationalize how badly these tools are performing. It makes it seem like it isn't about technological capabilities: it is about a religious belief that "competence" is too much to ask of either them or their software tools.
I recently tried to get Gemini to collect fresh news and show them to me, and instead of using search it hallucinated everything wholesale, titles, abstracts and links. Not just once, multiple times. I am kind of afraid of using Gemini now for anything related to web search. Here is a sample: > [1] Google DeepMind and Harvard researchers propose a new method for testing the ‘theory of mind’ of LLMs - Researchers have…
> All participating organizations then generated responses to each question from each of the four AI assistants. This time, we used the free/consumer versions of ChatGPT, Copilot, Perplexity and Gemini. Free versions were chosen to replicate the default (and likely most common) experience for users. Responses were generated in late May and early June 2025. First of all, none of the SOTA models we're currently using w…
It would be wild if they’d use anything else, because the free models are what most people use, and the concern is on how AI influences the general population.
It's important to bear this in mind whenever you find out that someone uses an LLM to summarize a meeting, email, or other communication you've held. That person is not really getting the message you were conveying.
I do sales meetings all day every day, and I've tried different AI note takers that send a summary of the meeting afterwards. I skim them when they get dumped into my CRM and they're almost always quite accurate. And I can verify it, because I was in the meeting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually there was a Wikipedia article of this name, but it was deleted in June -- because it was AI generated. Unfortunately AI falls for this much like humans do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
The biggest problem with that citation isn't that the article has since been deleted. The biggest problem is that that particular Wikipedia article was never a good source in the first place. That seems to be the real challenge with AI for this use case. It has no real critical thinking skills, so it's not really competent to choose reliable sources. So instead we're lowering the bar to just asking that the sources a…
I am reading the actual report and some of this seems _quite_ nitpicky: > ChatGPT / Radio-Canada / Is Trump starting a trade war? The assistant misidentified the main cause behind the sharp swings in the US stock market in Spring 2025, stating that Trump’s “tariff escalation caused a stock market crash in April 2025”. As RadioCanada’s evaluator notes: “In fact it was not the escalation between Washington and its Nort…
That may be nitpicky, but I don't think it's too much to ask that a computer system be fully factually accurate when it comes to basic objective numerical facts. This is very much a case of, "if it gets this stuff wrong, what else is it getting wrong?"
It's just a misuse of the tools to present LLM's summaries to people without a _lot_ of caveats about it's accuracy. I don't think they belong _anywhere_ near a legitimate news source.
My primary point about calling out those mistakes is that those are the kinds of minor mistakes in a summary that I would find quite tolerable and expected in my own use of LLMs, but I know what I am getting into when I use them. Just chucking those LLM generated summaries next to search results is malpractice, though.
I think the primary point of friction in a lot of critiques between people who find LLMs useful and people who hate AI usage is this:
People who use AI to generate content for consumption by others are being quite irresponsible in how it is presented, and are using it to replace human work that it is totally unsuitable for. A news organization that is putting out AI generated articles and summaries should just close up shop. They're producing totally valueless work. If I wanted chatgpt to summarize something, I could ask it myself in 20 seconds.
People who use AI for _themselves_ are more aware of what they are getting into, know the provenance, and aren't presenting it for others as their own work necessarily. This is more valuable economically, because getting someone to summarize something for you as an individual is quite expensive and time consuming, and even if the end results is quite shoddy, it's often better than nothing. This also goes for generating dumb videos on Sora or whatever or AI generated music for yourself to listen to or send to a few friends.