> mixtral [...] sometimes need to double-check its answers and be critical of its responses. [...] really strong in areas of science and Caveat that common sci

> mixtral [...] sometimes need to double-check its answers and be critical of its responses. [...] really strong in areas of science and Caveat that common science education misconceptions compromise web, wikipedia, and textbook content, and thus both llm training sets and quick double-checks. So mixtral sometimes says the Sun itself is yellow (but does usually manage white), that white light is white because it contains all colors, that individual atoms cannot be seen with a naked eye because they are too small, and so on. A lot of US science education looks like training humans on low-quality trigger-and-response pairs for llm-like "explanation". I've wondered if one could do a fine-tune, or train, on science education research's lists of common misconceptions, or on less-often-bogus sources like Science/Nature journal editorial content, and research paper introductions.