24 ms·

I'm not the person you asked, but it's useful to know if the summary was generated using a method prone to inaccuracy.

• stavros 1y ago
  That's all methods, though. Have you seen humans?
  • motoxpro 1y ago
    In this situation, humans are more accurate, for now, so it's good information to have. Same as I would like to know if humans self assessed in a study about how well they drive vs the empirical evidence. Humans just aren't that good at that task so it would be good to know coming in. Just call it Kagi Vibes instead of Kagi News as news has a higher bar (at least for me)
    • stavros 1y ago
      I'm not sure I agree that humans are more accurate at summarizing, but I don't have data, so I'll take your word for it.
      • motoxpro 1y ago
        I'd point to Wikipedia. You can say the content is "wrong". But the links go to the right place.
        • stavros 1y ago
          In my experience with Claude research, the links ~always go to the right place.
  • willguest 1y ago
    different kinds of inaccuracy
    • jama211 1y ago
      I find it more distasteful that they weren’t transparent about their method than the method being AI.
      • jama211 1y ago
        But they have updated the text now, which is nice!
  • edaemon 1y ago
    Sure, but it's useful to know what kind of inaccuracies to look for.
  • sph 1y ago
    Someone needs to coin the fallacy that, when anyone criticises LLMs, the speaker retorts with "but how humans are any better?" I've seen it so many times it definitely needs a name. As an entity of human intelligence, I am offended by these silly thought-terminating arguments.
    • stavros 1y ago
      It's called "the perfect world fallacy".