this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
1065 points (97.7% liked)

People Twitter

5375 readers
918 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
1065
Why is no one talking about how unproductive it is to have verify every "hallucination" ChatGPT gives you? (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 month ago by phoneymouse@lemmy.world to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
115 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

referencing its data sources

Have you actually checked whether those sources exist yourself? It's been quite a while since I've used GPT, and I would be positively surprised if they've managed to prevent its generation of nonexistent citations.

[โ€“] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Have you actually checked whether those sources exist yourself

When I'm curious enough, yes. While you can find plenty of "AI lied to me" examples online, they're much harder to fish for in the application itself.

99 times out of 100, the references are good. But those cases aren't fun to dunk on.