3 ms·
Well if you’re going to cite unnamed posts where unnamed people cited some LLM to argue against you, obviously you are 100% correct.
by brookst 2y ago
Well if you’re going to cite unnamed posts where unnamed people cited some LLM to argue against you, obviously you are 100% correct.
- tialaramex 2y agoFair, I actually misremembered and it wasn't my post they responded to with LLM slop but here is a HN user named "ranger_danger" in a thread with me in it, doing exactly what I described, LLM generated "citations" of US court cases that never really happened. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43509544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43509544 It's hard to know whether it's worse if "ranger_danger" did this on purpose and thought it's OK, or whether they didn't realise how the LLM works and thought this list was real.
- brookst 2y agoWhile I agree that’s beyond the pale, I do not agree it necessarily means they’re wrong. It just means they are noise adding no value, and a lot of irritation. As annoying as misinformed people and hallucinating LLMs are, it is a mistake to believe they are always the exact opposite of the truth.