Sadly it's not even just references, LLMs still hallucinate or at least misrepresent even the most basic of facts. That and the stereotypical GPT-verbage makes it impossible to use for writing anything significant.
Keep in mind that there's no difference between what happens inside a model when it "hallucinates" vs. when it generates "correct" output. It's the exact same process.
That’s true, but it’s also true of anything else that makes mistakes, including buggy software. When a buggy sorting algorithm produces a bad ordering it’s doing so “with the exact same process” the good ordering is coming from. Ditto for humans and their slips (although tbh I get a little tired of the analogizing of humans and llms…not that the analogies are wrong, but just that we always analogize human minds with the latest technology: wax writing pads through computers)
Uh... yes? I'm not sure why it's some significant insight.
Surely when google gives bad results, it's "the same process" as when it gives good results. And when a book gives wrong information, it's the exact same kind of ink as correct information.
We were already swimming in a world of bullshit prior to the wide availability of these. I'm not sure what the future holds, but I think intelligent people are going to become very skeptical of virtually all information sources.
I would imagine there's also a raft of people who will use it as a reason to give up on any search for truth.
I still do hold a lot of hope for their eventual capabilities, but I'm also pretty pessimistic on what the direct and Nth order social effects will be.
Keep in mind that there's no difference between what happens inside a model when it "hallucinates" vs. when it generates "correct" output. It's the exact same process.