| ▲ | e12e 6 hours ago | |||||||
> A human can then verify the ones with under 90% certainty. How about the author actually reads the finished report a couple of times and checks all the references? It really is the lowest bar - even lower maybe than running a spell check. | ||||||||
| ▲ | palmotea 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
> How about the author actually reads the finished report a couple of times and checks all the references? But then you wouldn't be embracing the new agentic ways of working! | ||||||||
| ▲ | danaris 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
How about the author actually, y'know authors the report? | ||||||||
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
The hallucinations here (https://gptzero.me/news/investigations-kpmg/) would have passed a cursory reference check. It's easy to see when it's laid out in a table that "BNP Paribas. AI Integration: Transforming Financial Journeys. The Banking Scene, 2025." is a false citation, because the title doesn't quite match and it wrongly attributes BNP Paribas authorship to an article written about BNP Paribas by some random Belgian guy doing business as "The Banking Scene". It'd be a lot harder to see when you're skimming through browser tab 9 of 45 and see all the key words match up. | ||||||||
| ||||||||