[_jsmh]

"False or misleading answers from AI chatbots masquerading as facts still plague the industry and despite improvements there is no clear solution to the accuracy problem in sight."

One potential solution to the accuracy problem is to turn facts into a marketplace. Make AIs deposit collateral for the facts they emit and have them lose the collateral and pay it to the user when it's found that statements they presented were false.

AI would be standing behind its words by having something to lose, like humans. A facts marketplace would make facts easy to challenge and hard to get right.

Working POC implementation of facts marketplace in my submissions.

[mikkupikku]

I doubt that could ever work. It's trivial to get these models to output fabrications if that's what you want; just keep asking it for more details about a subject than it could reasonably have. This works because the models are absolutely terrible at saying "I don't know", and this might be a fundamental limitation of the tech. Then of course you have the mess of figuring out what the facts even are, there are many contested subjects our society cannot agree on, many of which don't lend themselves to scientific inquiry.

[_jsmh]

Thank you for sharing this opinion.

AI != LLMs. A future version of better AI might become capable of saying "I don't know."

The mess of figuring out what the facts are, in a way, already has deployed solutions. Journalists are a form of fact checkers. Big news companies with multi-million budgets pay journalists to check things. In effect there already is a market for fact-checking. Managing perceptions by twisting facts is something many have been accused of. When news companies are found to have spread lies they possibly face penalties.

So if the big clunky enterprise version of a form of fact-checking is already in place and kind of working, why would something closer to the lean startup-y tail-end of the distribution of fact-checking not work? If a version of a facts marketplace is already working, why doubt it would ever work?

X paying users for engagement is a new variation of this. Prediction markets like Polymarket is another. Polymarket teaming up with TruthSocial could be an interesting result.

It's okay to have many contested subjects our society cannot agree on and which don't lend themselves to scientific inquiry. It's okay to say I don't know.