4 ms·
What’s the point of getting the wrong answer quickly? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47587662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47587662
by Retric 7mo ago
What’s the point of getting the wrong answer quickly?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47587662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47587662
- dyauspitr 7mo agoWell, we’re just going in circles now. I just said LLMs cite what they find so it’s not going to be the wrong answer if you do your due diligence.
- uoaei 7mo agoDo extra work in step 2 because you got lazy in step 1 is not my idea of efficient or complete.
- bryanrasmussen 7mo agothat depends how much more quickly and efficiently you can do the extra work in step 2 than in step 1.
- Retric 7mo agoIn this case it’s strictly less efficient. You can only correct for missing entries by doing the same work you’d need to start from scratch. But after that you now have a second list to consider.
- NetMageSCW 7mo agoIt’s a long way from got lazy to didn’t write their own Internet scraper to scan for books, author’s age and opinions.
- Retric 7mo agoMissing entries don’t get corrected by looking at the LLM output. That only helps when the LLM makes something up from thin air or mangles the output. Of course it’s not the kind of question you can get an objectively correct answer for, but you could come up with the correct answer for a given methodology.
- xorcist 7mo agoIsn't verifying sources a much harder problem than just searching the list of works in the first place? Especially in cases such as this. For well known works of literature and music structured data exists already.