3 ms·
By that logic why don't you just directly ask the LLM on whether a citation agrees or not, you are already trusting it to be correct with that graph in the firs
by throwaway290 3y ago
By that logic why don't you just directly ask the LLM on whether a citation agrees or not, you are already trusting it to be correct with that graph in the first place...
- brutusborn 3y agoYou are correct, I wrote that in a rush and mixed up examples in my head. I don’t think you need to trust the LLMs for this kind of thing to be very useful. The LLM could generate the KG with every node labelled as “autogenerated.” When you use the graph for research, you are still going to read the papers you are interested in so you can then update the relevant citation node with the label “human checked.” If a research group uses the same graph over time, the nodes will gradually become “trustworthy” (ie verified by humans). Maybe even get reviewers to update a papers graph during review and publish that for other groups to add to their graphs.
- visarga 3y agoThat's a great idea. It would be easier to know if anyone done what you want, get a better overview of the current knowledge.
- throwaway290 3y agoThen why not just author knowledge as a graph in the first place, as humans?
- brutusborn 3y agoThat would be great but if we can’t even convince most researchers to use open science principles then good luck convincing them to spend the time to convert their papers into graphs.
- throwaway290 3y agoI reckon researchers would be on board if the tooling is there.
- 3abiton 3y agoI already feel synthesis is becoming a useless skill for humans.