9 comments

  • wrs 2 minutes ago
    [delayed]
  • abdullahkhalids 10 minutes ago
    If you are building your own harness that does correct citations, is the correct thing to give AI access to some deterministic tool that allows is to actually deterministically copy paste parts of documents its reading (with links), rather than stochastic copy paste that they do by default?
  • Gecko4072 53 minutes ago
    I noticed this personally. Saw a citation with a preview for source A, which I knew was reliable. Checked, and it referenced a Reddit article and various other less reliable sources. Was a direct citation too that actually wasn't.
  • betree 13 minutes ago
    100% my experience with this service. The intent is good, but it seems they're still in the "fake it until you make it" stage.
  • motbus3 32 minutes ago
    I felt that myself. And I have the same problem with gemini
  • gamblor956 11 minutes ago
    This is why lawyers have been getting in trouble using AI to review case law or (worse) to generate documents.

    It creates citations and references that look close enough to be plausible but are just made up of thin air. CA passed a law explicitly requiring lawyers to review AI-generated documents that is now before the governor for signing (previously, lawyers were ethically expected to review documents submitted to the court or provided to clients but that doesn't have the same level of force as an explicit requirement).

  • tempfile 46 minutes ago
    BS machine produces BS; in other news water is wet and sky is blue.
    • Spivak 32 minutes ago
      What's surprising about this is that you can get the bullshit machine to produce correct externally validate citations. It's not particularly hard either—it's one of the first things you build when you give an LLM access to a body of documents/search. So for a large public service to whiff like this is certainly a stain on their credibility.
      • delichon 21 minutes ago
        On the other hands it's a boost to their credibility that they make their mistakes easier to evaluate than their competition does. It would be worse if they had a similar error rate without openly providing references. Kudos to Perplexity for including more empirical attack surface.
  • flashforged 2 hours ago
    [dead]
  • animanoir 44 minutes ago
    [dead]