4 ms·
You know, it doesn't that I can see. I recall seeing it with sources in the demo at I/O this morning. It is smarter than the previous beta, but yes, it's still
by JieJie 3y ago
You know, it doesn't that I can see. I recall seeing it with sources in the demo at I/O this morning.
It is smarter than the previous beta, but yes, it's still throws some wild pitches, and without sources. Still a work in progress.
- vitorgrs 3y agoAccording to Google, it will only cite sources if it literally copy-paste answers. So sometimes it says, but is rarely because of course it won't just copy-paste everything.
- JieJie 3y agoYeah, I much prefer Bing's sourcing, though I'm less than pleased with it's sources. Bing likes to find a bunch of "Top 10" posts from content farms that answer whatever question I was asking. I think LLMs still make up most of their answers, but use whatever links they find to generate context for the answers, so there is a lower possibility it'll generate confabulations. Of course, if the source is low-quality, it's just going to use that to justify a sloppy answer. Still think it's better than me sorting through content farm posts. I look forward to next year's models that are trained on curated data sifting through well-sourced web sites. *I like to add, "Only use educational or science journalism sources," to get higher quality links.