4 ms·

> Participating organizations raised concerns about responses that relied heavily or solely on Wikipedia content – Radio-Canada calculated that of 108 sources

> Participating organizations raised concerns about responses that relied heavily or solely on Wikipedia content – Radio-Canada calculated that of 108 sources cited in responses from ChatGPT, 58% were from Wikipedia. CBC-Radio-Canada are amongst a number of Canadian media organisations suing ChatGPT’s creator, OpenAI, for copyright infringement. Although the impact of this on ChatGPT’s approach to sourcing is not explicitly known, it may explain the high use of Wikipedia sources. Also, is attributing, without any citation, ChatGPT's preference for Wikipedia to a reprisal to an active lawsuit a significant issue? Or do the authors get off scot-free because they caged it in "we don't know, but maybe it's the case"?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ffsm8 1y ago
Literally constantly? It takes both careful prompting and throughout double-checking to really notice however. Because often the links also exist, just don't represent what the LLM made it sound like. And the worst part about the people unironically thinking they can use it for "research" is, that it essentially supercharges confirmation bias. The inefficient sidequests you do while researching is generally what actually gives you the ability to really reason about a topic. If you instead just laser focus on the tidbits you prompted with... Well, your opinion is a lot less grounded.
- edavison1 1y ago
  Ran into this the other day researching a brewery. Google AI summary referenced a glowing NYT profile of its beers. The linked article was not in fact about that brewery, but an entirely different one. Brewery I was researching has never been mentioned in the NYT. Complete invention at that point and has 'stolen' the good press from a different place and just fed the user what they wanted to see, namely a recommendation for the thing I was googling.
terminalshort 1y ago
It's a huge issue. No wonder AI hallucinates when it trains on this kind of crap.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ffsm8 1y ago

Literally constantly? It takes both careful prompting and throughout double-checking to really notice however. Because often the links also exist, just don't represent what the LLM made it sound like. And the worst part about the people unironically thinking they can use it for "research" is, that it essentially supercharges confirmation bias. The inefficient sidequests you do while researching is generally what actually gives you the ability to really reason about a topic. If you instead just laser focus on the tidbits you prompted with... Well, your opinion is a lot less grounded.

edavison1 1y ago
Ran into this the other day researching a brewery. Google AI summary referenced a glowing NYT profile of its beers. The linked article was not in fact about that brewery, but an entirely different one. Brewery I was researching has never been mentioned in the NYT. Complete invention at that point and has 'stolen' the good press from a different place and just fed the user what they wanted to see, namely a recommendation for the thing I was googling.

terminalshort 1y ago

It's a huge issue. No wonder AI hallucinates when it trains on this kind of crap.