My 12 year old told me that their friend group says "Oh I AI'd that" when they make a mistake, as a joke. Yet you trust AI to distill down a days worth of information in a 100% accurate way? When pre-teens already understand how unreliably they are?

▲

binarymax 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If I'm getting citations, and the distillation has strong alignment with citations, then it's fine. In other words: the if the summary is a highlight and not a rewrite then I'm happy. I've studied this extensively and have even created metrics around this problem: https://maxirwin.com/articles/llm-rag/

▲

irishcoffee 4 hours ago | parent [-]

So, if you review the entire dataset? At that point just write the summary yourself.

I use "AI" a lot, it is a fantastic tool. We need to stop pretending it is some kind of panacea. It's a tool.

	▲	Forgeties79 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I use "AI" a lot, it is a fantastic tool. We need to stop pretending it is some kind of panacea. It's a tool. I have been repeating some variation of this for months. If people would stop acting like it’s THE tech solution to ALL things ALL the time I bet a lot of critics would quiet down. The overhyping has become exhausting. It’s been going on for years. GPT messed up the math for me the other day when I was simply adding 10 durations for a TRT. Couple of HH:MM:SS inputs, annoying to add up and I had it open. It got it wrong, I told it it was wrong, it got it wrong again. Then out of curiosity I provided it the answer, asked for it to confirm it against the original numbers, and it went “you’re absolute right, it’s [original/wrong answer from earlier].” This stuff happens probably 10-15% of the time for me regardless of the model. Not just math, just super simple crap. It’s wild to see at this point after 3-4 solid years of “hyperscaling” and overhyping. And it’s the kind of thing that keeps people like me from buying in beyond the foot or two we’ve stuck in the water.

▲

Zambyte 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What does "100% accurate" distillation even mean? That sounds contradictory. "Good enough" is fundamentally what makes distillation valuable, not perfection.

	▲	Conner_Hobbs 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

ToucanLoucan 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I will say, while I agree with the broad strokes of what you're saying, in my experience when you provide an LLM with data to summarize, instead of it needing to go find it, the hallucination rate goes down staggeringly. I've never had a huge hallucination when the material I'm asking to be summarized is provided to it at the time of the request.

Any further distance than that though, even summarizing the conversation it's aware of up to that point, is dicier.