Maybe I’m not creative enough to see the potential, but what value does this bring ?

Given the example I saw about CRISPR, what does this model give over a different, non explaining model in the output ? Does it really make me more confident in the output if I know the data came from Arxiv or Wikipedia ?

I find the LLM outputs are subtlety wrong not obviously wrong

▲

voidhorse 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It makes the black box slightly more transparent. Knowing more in this regard allows us to be more precise—you go from prompt tweak witchcraft and divination to more of possible science and precise method.

▲

great_psy 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Can this method be extended to go down to the sentence level ?

In the example it shows how much of the reason for an answer is due to data from Wikipedia. Can it drill down to show paragraph or sentence level that influences the answer ?

▲

rickydroll 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Your question should be "Can it drill down to show the paragraphs or sentences that influence the answer?"

I believe that the plagiarism complaint about llm models comes from the assumption that there is a one-to-one relationship between training and answers. I think the real and delightfully messier situation is that there is a many-to-one relationship.

	▲	great_psy 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The example on the website shows one to many as well: Wikipedia, axive article, etc along with a ratio how much it influences the chunk of the answer.