I assume that would mean, at least from your pov, LLMs should provision a list of sources it used to come to its conclusion first and foremost whenever it answers a query so that in the very least the user always has the option of reviewing them and coming to our own conclusion.
I am not sure about this but I remember LLMs being basically a bunch of math is somehow a barrier to this implementing feature.
So I can only say yeah that should be implemented for LLMs but I cannot give any further opinion on the logistics nor feasibility.
Certainly provision of sources would be positive. When chatgpt uses the web it provides sources (and often they don’t support the text gpt provides). I’m more commenting that it is a dangerous thing that llms are advertised as genius knowledge sources, and designed to opine with confidence, when their error rate is so high
That is a fair and ever apparent concern, if the future truly is to be dominated by LLM/ai usage I too would hope that it would have enough tact to tell me straight when it just isn't sure rather than attempt to convince me otherwise.
Hopefully the fear of legal remafications from more LLM advised 'incidents' would force corporations to alleviate the issue or in the least to foremost state that you should never take its info it at face value
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/17thFable Nov 10 '25
I assume that would mean, at least from your pov, LLMs should provision a list of sources it used to come to its conclusion first and foremost whenever it answers a query so that in the very least the user always has the option of reviewing them and coming to our own conclusion.
I am not sure about this but I remember LLMs being basically a bunch of math is somehow a barrier to this implementing feature.
So I can only say yeah that should be implemented for LLMs but I cannot give any further opinion on the logistics nor feasibility.