You are lucky if you can get it to even cite wikipedia. I found a lot of the time I can’t even find the “facts” it pulls from the source it cites at all.
People love confident voices that will do all the thinking for them. I’m really into weight training and fitness, and the amount of times I see someone share a clip from a “science-based” fitness influencer and say something like “I didn’t check the sources but they cite all these studies” is wild.
and once I saw a comment on reddit that replied to another comment with a Google AI overview screenshot, and said “AI said its source is [site] so I believe it.” The summary had a clickable link to the source in the text and they couldn’t even do that.
And not only that, they’ll consider its response more reliable if they can see it cited sources… which are almost always Wikipedia.
You are lucky if you can get it to even cite wikipedia. I found a lot of the time I can’t even find the “facts” it pulls from the source it cites at all.
People love confident voices that will do all the thinking for them. I’m really into weight training and fitness, and the amount of times I see someone share a clip from a “science-based” fitness influencer and say something like “I didn’t check the sources but they cite all these studies” is wild.
and once I saw a comment on reddit that replied to another comment with a Google AI overview screenshot, and said “AI said its source is [site] so I believe it.” The summary had a clickable link to the source in the text and they couldn’t even do that.
And they can still hallucinate even if they cite an article.
they also combine junk, form opinion pieces+ blogs.
Nah, the sources are mostly reddit. Wikipedia would be too god a source for LLMs
even if the cited sources is not enough info, it encourages you too search for more updated articles sources, thats what i do with wiki pages.