72
submitted 6 days ago by remington@beehaw.org to c/science@beehaw.org
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 days ago

only "over 10 percent"??

how high could that number be and still make a valid, accurate statement? 25? 50?

[-] haerrii@feddit.org 8 points 6 days ago

I mean, based on my experience, 85 is still "over 10"

[-] Deyis@beehaw.org 4 points 6 days ago

"The lying bullshit machine keeps outputting bullshit and lies, engineers stunned"

[-] ArseAssassin@sopuli.xyz 3 points 5 days ago

To test whether the software accurately reported what its sources said, the researchers broke the overviews down into 98,020 individual factual claims. They built an automated verification pipeline, powered by a separate large language model, that read the text of the cited websites.

Uhh...

Maybe you shouldn't have the hallucination machine verify the output of the hallucination machine?

[-] searabbit@piefed.social 5 points 6 days ago

I'm surprised it's only 10%. I remember a couple of years ago I worked on a team trying to build an AI tool that, as a feature, could cite sources. I was skeptical then because gemini couldn't reliably cite correct sources on a google search, so what made our team so confident the OpenAI api version could do that? I mean, it still can't because it doesn't know where the information is coming from, and I'm sure getting it to double and triple check its work to get it right leads to it getting stuck in cycles.

The point is you need to treat AI "facts" as if your trivia buddy told you a fun fact. It sounds right and you trust that they looked it up at some point, but they're confidently incorrect at least a couple of times a trivia night so you shouldn't put money on it without fact checking yourself.

[-] spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app 9 points 6 days ago

It doesn't 'know' anything, and getting it to, "triple check" itself is merely reinforcing those terms in the token space. These LLMs do not even begin to have the capacity to actually check their sources.

The only way it does work is to add extra algorithms that check correlation between output and source, and even then, you're still back in the realm of word weight association.

TL;DR - LLMs literally cannot do this.

[-] WesternExposure@mastodon.ie 2 points 6 days ago
[-] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 5 points 6 days ago

Even better, noai.duckduckgo.com

[-] cnnrduncan@lemmy.cnnrduncan.com 1 points 4 days ago

Or host your own searxng/degoog instance.

[-] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 2 points 3 days ago

While nice, the barrier to entry for self hosting is very high for most people.

[-] cnnrduncan@lemmy.cnnrduncan.com 1 points 3 days ago

Yeah I don't think my mum could figure out how to self host anything but it is a lot easier and more accessible nowadays than it was not very long ago!

this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2026
72 points (98.6% liked)

Science

16398 readers
121 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS