You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
6 points
*

Exactly, and all of this is a simple matter of having multiple models trained on different instances of the entire public internet and determining whether their outputs contradict each other or a web search.

I wonder how they prevented search engine results from contradicting data found through web search before LLMs became a thing?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

They didn’t really have to before LLM. Search engine results, in the heyday we’re backlink driven. You could absolutely search disinformation and find it. But if you searched for a credible article on someone, chances are more people would have links to the good article than the disinformation. However, conspiracy theories often leaked through into search results. And in that case they just gave you the web pages and you had to decide for yourself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

They didn’t really have to before LLM.

No shit. Maybe they should just get rid of the extra bullshit generator and serve the sources instead of piling more LLM on the problem that only exists because of it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

this naive revisionist shit still standing in ignorance of easily 15y+ of SEO-fuckery (first for influence, and then for spam) is hilarious

permalink
report
parent
reply

TechTakes

!techtakes@awful.systems

Create post

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here’s the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

Community stats

  • 1.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 418

    Posts

  • 11K

    Comments

Community moderators