I don't buy into the rhetoric about misinformation but the author touches on a real concern. I blame ChatGPT and other LLM clients for not surfacing their fallibility more clearly. They should highlight claims in their UX and allow options for the user to "research" or "verify" in their own way, without relying on that very flakey single one-shot inference. The big honchos (Anthropic, OpenAI) need to make it clearer that their output is, at best, an informed guess. A tiny disclaimer doesn't cut it.
back
1 comments
Just to be clear, the "tiny disclaimer" is directly below the prompt box and says "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info." So it is interesting that anyone would take a hard stance that their prompt results are true facts without checking any important info (particularly after someone highlights this if they somehow missed it).
All you need to do is ask it to perform a web search. Or you can sample a few answers at high temperature.
I think young people growing with LLMs will know all the ins and outs of their limitations. But it's a rapidly evolving field, maybe in 5 years we won't doubt LLMs very often.