When evidence is needed, "often correct enough" is not sufficient. You need reliable and correct for sure.
I assume you understand how LLMs work? Probabilistic word generation? That can't possibly be used as a source. It literally works by making up things that look probable. It can be used to find a source, but you still need a source.
The LLM might be correct often enough, but you'll only know the LLM is correct in the case at hand by checking at a source…
> If ChatGPT behaves like a roulette to you I'll attribute that to operator error.
I never used it. I know LLMs can be impressive and useful, but sourcing is not among the use cases. The operator should be operating the right tool for the job in the first place.
Shit I say is hopefully correct often enough, but I still can't use myself as a source.
I'm not implying frequency, and it does apply here, you cited ChatGPT as an evidence, in this very discussion. I'm speaking about this, specifically. This comment where you do this was downvoted and flagged to death. And I did mention LLM can be useful. What are you trying to do here?
I assume you understand how LLMs work? Probabilistic word generation? That can't possibly be used as a source. It literally works by making up things that look probable. It can be used to find a source, but you still need a source.
The LLM might be correct often enough, but you'll only know the LLM is correct in the case at hand by checking at a source…
> If ChatGPT behaves like a roulette to you I'll attribute that to operator error.
I never used it. I know LLMs can be impressive and useful, but sourcing is not among the use cases. The operator should be operating the right tool for the job in the first place.
Shit I say is hopefully correct often enough, but I still can't use myself as a source.