3 ms·
Have you used one recently? The big providers all cite sources if give a research prompt.
by GorbachevyChase 9mo ago
Have you used one recently? The big providers all cite sources if give a research prompt.
- sofixa 9mo agoSometimes they hallucinate them, or if they exist, sources include blatant nonsense (like state owned propaganda, such as RT) / don't support the claims made by the output.
- maximilianthe1 9mo agowhat's worse is when they cite clearly LLM generated articles from web
- keeganpoppen 9mo agowtf are you conversing with LLMs that you regularly are running into "state owned propaganda" in the references? my "blatant nonsense" detector is going off...
- olyjohn 9mo agoMy favorite is when it cites 5 sources, and 1 of them is a real source, and then the other 4 are short form junk that point to the first one as the source. So basically its just picked one article and summarized it for you and not picked any info from any other places. Oh and bonus points when I type the exact same prompt into a search engine, and that 1 source is the top search result anyways.
- sofixa 8mo agohttps://www.euronews.com/next/2025/11/04/ai-chatbots-are-spewing-russian-propaganda-study-finds https://www.euronews.com/next/2025/11/04/ai-chatbots-are-spe... Original study: https://www.isdglobal.org/digital-dispatch/investigation-talking-points-when-chatbots-surface-russian-state-media/ https://www.isdglobal.org/digital-dispatch/investigation-tal...
- i80and 9mo agoUnfortunately, the citations are generally quite low quality and have in my experience a high rate of not actually supporting the text they're attached to.
- GorbachevyChase 8mo agoThis is on par with humans, honestly. I’ve dug into cited studies by consulting firms that were 100% false.
- hk__2 8mo agoIn my experience they just add random links at the bottom that are often unrelated to the response they give; there’s absolutely no guarantee that they did read them or that their response is based on them.