|
Top-level
 @null @jon the trouble with this thinking though is that while it was a test in this instance, it's also a perfectly reasonable thing for a normal person to do. Looking up people in search engines has many legitimate use cases beyond vanity and novelty. It's reasonable to insist these tools better show their sources plainly, with as much context as possible so as to not mislead. 2 comments
The unfortunate truth is that ChatGPT's success led to an AI goldrush. Every tech company is trying to cash in. They're wedging LLMs into places they don't belong, and are generally incentivized to lie instead of accurately describing strengths and weaknesses. The hype will calm over time and we'll see what shakes out. In the mean time, let's face it, most of us aren't famous enough to generate enough "tokens" in the corpus of human knowledge to be understood by an LLM. |
Gregory's Server
@JacksonBates @jon It's a reasonable thing for people to do only because they think ChatGPT is a traditional search engine. It is not. (This is a failure of marketing though, not a failure of the end user.)
Expecting LLMs to cite sources is another common misunderstanding of LLMs. They simply cannot do so in many cases. It's something that hopefully can be improved upon.