Google summaries from websites mainly did this before “AI” came around. Now I just don’t know the source unless I dig myself. Would rather it went back to before, or at least they implemented the veracity checks better.

I thought it was interested that the movie looper had argidrones, but what inspired that wasn’t part of the training set or discussion online. I get remarkably bad answers and search results which seem misleading at best.

▲

metabagel an hour ago | parent [-]

> Now I just don’t know the source unless I dig myself.

Claude includes links to references.

▲

foresterre 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

What's a problem though is that while it includes a reference, its distillation from the source, or worse, from the combination of sources, is often plain wrong. I check them regularly, and it made me very distrustful of Claude's capacity to faithfully summarise or explain from a source.

When asked to give specific links, it's usually even worse.

▲

tmp10423288442 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So does ChatGPT. The hallucination problem is not completely solved, but much better than a few years ago, especially if you use reasoning mode, where it’s more likely to spontaneously do a web search

▲

Benlovescnn 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	DiggyJohnson 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Follow the guidelines