3 ms·
> don't use LLMs Don't you think they're useful as fact checkers?
by qarl 7d ago
> don't use LLMs
Don't you think they're useful as fact checkers?
- tenuousemphasis 7d agoSure, if you don't mind your fact checker to be confidently wrong often.
- qarl 7d agoYou mean hallucinations? Hallucinations don't really work that way. They happen when you ask an LLM to generate new material. Not so much reviewing existing material. But there's always the "ask a second LLM to get two opinions" technique which gets you pretty close to error free. And... now that I think of it... even if it was terrible and missed 50% of the errors... wouldn't that still be better than using no LLM which catches 0% of the errors?
- cheesecakegood 7d agoPersonally I think every single medium to long form piece of writing should go through an LLM grammar check at the minimum (they are great at catching stuff like correcting “reign in” to “rein in”, not to mention their/they’re and so on) although I don’t think they generally have the self control to make the corrections themselves without screwing stuff up. I can see being lazy and skipping it, but refusing to use them even for more minimal advice purposes seems crazy to me.