[stormfather]

I think for practical purposes you could hold that text from wikipedia or scientific papers if true, for example. The issue I think OP is referring to is if a LLM can refer back to these axiomatically true sources to ground and justify its outputs like a human would.

[nico]

Well in that case, maybe the debate is: do we want that? Why?

[valine]

If you can trust the model is at least as accurate as wikipedia then it becomes a drop in replacement for every task you do that requires wikipedia.

There are a whole range of tasks that can’t be done today with an LLM because of the hallucination issues. You can’t rely on the information it gives you when writing a research paper, for example.

[Barrin92]

For starters because one of the first products people decided to use these models for is a search engine, and I don't think it is a stretch to argue that search engines should have a positive relationship, rather than indifference, towards facts and the truth.