4 ms·

so, much like other knowledge sources?

• roywiggins 4y ago
  Most knowledge sources don't make up totally fictional citations to nonexistent sources. Or, if they do, nobody uses them for anything serious. Even Wikipedia citations will get removed if they point to URLs that never existed.
  • nathias 4y ago
    if we focus on the best sources, even in studies a lot of research can't be replicated, and if we focus on te most common ones like newspapers and tv, I'd say most of it is made up or might as well be
    • adamsmith143 4y ago
      That's just a bad take and it doesn't excuse the problems with GPT.
    • roywiggins 4y ago
      Sure, nothing is perfect. But I'm not talking about it just being wrong, I'm talking about it citing webpages and books that don't exist and never did[0]. If Wikipedia regularly had that sort of quality issue people just wouldn't use it. There's a threshold below which something stops being useful. [0] Bloggs, Joe. "ChatGPT just makes stuff up". Nature, vol 123, 2022, pp 123-321. Wiley Online Library, https://doi.org/10.1111/111/111 https://doi.org/10.1111/111/111
• adamsmith143 4y ago
  Ok but if I read a paper from a well known Author published in NeurIps or Nature I have a good sense of how trustworthy that paper might be. Even if we ask GPT to cite it's sources, which it will do, it will then also happily generate false sources. It's untrustworthy turtles all the way down.