[nunez]

Sorry, but no. These AI products are selling themselves as arbiters of truth. There is zero point in using them if you have to verify everything afterwards (hence why I do not use them). There should be reprecussions for hallucinations that cause financial loss, especially if you pay to use them.

[dinfinity]

> These AI products are selling themselves as arbiters of truth.

Nonsense. They very explicitly are not doing that (if only for obvious legal reasons). Disclaimers everywhere.

[hadao]

@dinfinity You're right about disclaimers. But there's a disconnect between:

Marketing: "Most capable AI assistant" Reality: 30% accuracy + mockery + no support Price: $200/month

If they want to hide behind disclaimers, they should price accordingly. Or better yet, their disclaimer should read: "May insult you and ignore your complaints."

[dinfinity]

I'm sorry, but you are being melodramatic. The pricing is in no way a guarantee for LLM accuracy, especially for somebody even remotely technical (you're on Github and HackerNews).

If my grandmother had this experience, I would not blame her for being ignorant of LLM hallucination and demanding better service, but for somebody technical to go to such lengths to complain after they got burnt makes me think that the 'insult' was actually pretty accurate.

[nunez]

Yeah, but for every technical person that "should know better," there are ten people who don't know better who are likely to get similarly duped.

[nunez]

Disclaimers like speed limits. The sign says 55 (88 kph); everyone does 70 (112 kph) or more without impunity because the road is designed for it.