←back to thread

An LLM is a lossy encyclopedia

(simonwillison.net)
509 points tosh | 3 comments | 29 Aug 25 09:40 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

(the referenced HN thread starts at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45060519)
Show context
stego-tech ◴[02 Sep 25 14:03 UTC] No.45103263[source]▶
It’s a lossy encyclopedia that can lie to and manipulate you. In that use case, it’s fairly useless because you cannot intrinsically trust its answers without performing additional testing and research, in which case you would’ve been better off learning new things than making sure an LLM wasn’t lying to you.
replies(1): >>45103280 #
quantummagic ◴[02 Sep 25 14:04 UTC] No.45103280[source]▶
> It’s a lossy encyclopedia that can lie to and manipulate you.

So can a traditional encyclopedia.

replies(2): >>45103508 #>>45103693 #
1. mrweasel ◴[02 Sep 25 14:22 UTC] No.45103508[source]▶
We're at such a strange point where even school children knows that something like Wikipedia isn't necessarily factually correct and that you need to double check. They then go and ask ChatGPT, as if it wasn't trained on Wikipedia.

We haven't reached the stage yet where the majority of people are as sceptical of chatbots as they are of Wikipedia.

I get that even if people know not to trust a wiki, they might anyway, because, meh, good enough, but I still like us to move into a stage where the majority is at least somewhat aware that the chatbot might be wrong.

replies(1): >>45103734 #
2. stego-tech ◴[02 Sep 25 14:39 UTC] No.45103734[source]▶
To be fair, most people aren’t even critical of Wikipedia. They read an article, consume its content, and believe themselves competent experts without digging into the sources, the papers, or the talk pages for discourse and dissent.

Giving LLMs credibility as “lossless encyclopedias” is tacit approval of further dumbing-down of humanity through answer engines instead of building critical thinking skills.

replies(1): >>45103874 #
3. mrweasel ◴[02 Sep 25 14:50 UTC] No.45103874[source]▶
No, I agree that most people aren't critical (critical enough) of Wikipedia. My point is that many of them know that they should be.