• bitofhope@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Exactly, and all of this is a simple matter of having multiple models trained on different instances of the entire public internet and determining whether their outputs contradict each other or a web search.

    I wonder how they prevented search engine results from contradicting data found through web search before LLMs became a thing?

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      They didn’t really have to before LLM. Search engine results, in the heyday we’re backlink driven. You could absolutely search disinformation and find it. But if you searched for a credible article on someone, chances are more people would have links to the good article than the disinformation. However, conspiracy theories often leaked through into search results. And in that case they just gave you the web pages and you had to decide for yourself.

      • bitofhope@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        They didn’t really have to before LLM.

        No shit. Maybe they should just get rid of the extra bullshit generator and serve the sources instead of piling more LLM on the problem that only exists because of it.

      • froztbyte@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        this naive revisionist shit still standing in ignorance of easily 15y+ of SEO-fuckery (first for influence, and then for spam) is hilarious