>>blueri+(OP)
It is refreshing to see I am not the only person who cannot get LLMs to say anything valuable. I have tried several times, but the cycle "You're right to question this. I actually didn't do anything you asked for. Here is some more garbage!" gets really old really fast.
It makes me wonder whether everyone else is kidding themselves, or if I'm just holding it wrong.
>>danlit+ag
This why I like how perplexity forces citations. I use it more like I’m googling then I care about what the LLM writes. The LLM simply acts as a sometimes unreasonable interface to the search engine. So really, I’m more focused on if whatever embeddings the LLM is trained on found some correlations between different documents, etc that were not obvious to a different kind of search engine.
>>mnky98+5j
You're over-representing the usefulness here. On topics where traditional search reaches a dead end, you will find the AI citations to be the same ones you might have found, except that upon checking, they were clearly misread or misrepresented. Dangerous and a waste of time.
It's much more helpful on popular topics where summarization itself is already high quality and sufficient.