And it has been around for much longer, and has gone through the problems I mentioned. The more "citation needed" entries, the less you trust an article. At least many of them list their cites at the bottom, giving you an actual source that you can reference. LLMs, when they cite sources, seem to often make those up as well.
I’m afraid that’s basically nonsense, as far as I can tell. MTHFR mutations probably do affect B vitamin metabolism but they don’t have any established symptoms and pretty much no primary care doctor (or even a clinical geneticist) would think to test for them since they’d have no idea what to do with the results. The evidence just isn’t there for clinical presentation or treatment.
Yeah I wonder if a lot of these "chronic cases resolved by LLM" can be attributed to placebo effects
When I took Oil & Gas back in the 1990s, our prof pointed out there’s clauses present in the boilerplate of the majority of Texas O&G royalties contracts that are poorly drafted and/or legally unenforceable (in his opinion), but have never been challenged in court.
The whole job? No.
For being crowd-sourced, Wikipedia is shockingly reliable these days. A number of studies show Wikipedia holds its own compared to a variety of other encyclopedias with its most significant lag being in general readability. While it remains potentially subject to vandalism, it has achieved a measure of authority through its citation policies, even when cumbersome, where a more traditional encyclopedia publisher would be relying on expert staff and reputation to establish its authority.
Yes, agreed.
I choose wikipedia because I imagine most readers have used it, and understand the cases where it is useful despite reliability concerns. The challenge with LLMs is for everyone to understand where the fail cases are and how to avoid them.
The very clear path forward is to ban generative ai and let people grow in experience by actually doing things.
