Can’t it source other LLM outputs as “verified source” and thus still say whatever sounds good, like any LLM? Providing “technical” verification, e.g. SHA, gives no insurance about the content itself being from a reputable source. I don’t think adding confidence and sourcing changes anything, the user STILL has to verify that whatever is provided is coherent and a third party is actually a good source. Thanks for making the process public though, doing better than OpenAI does.
Isn’t it “source: model” basically roulette? We go back to the initial problem. Also anything else that is not model might also be hallucinated if at any point the string that gives back “source:” goes through the model.
Can’t it source other LLM outputs as “verified source” and thus still say whatever sounds good, like any LLM? Providing “technical” verification, e.g. SHA, gives no insurance about the content itself being from a reputable source. I don’t think adding confidence and sourcing changes anything, the user STILL has to verify that whatever is provided is coherent and a third party is actually a good source. Thanks for making the process public though, doing better than OpenAI does.
[deleted by user]
Isn’t it “source: model” basically roulette? We go back to the initial problem. Also anything else that is not model might also be hallucinated if at any point the string that gives back “source:” goes through the model.
[deleted by user]