[andershaig]

It's clearly labeled as the output of Sonnet 3.7, not truth. We all need to apply our own critical analysis of anything we read, whether it's claimed to be from an LLM or from Wikipedia. The possibility of inaccuracy isn't a reason to withhold comment.

[SketchySeaBeast]

So what do we do with that information? If I apply a critical framework around interpreting the LLM output, the answer is to reject it for being both not necessarily true but also knowing that the LLM isn't even trying to be correct, it's strictly trying to produce convincing sentences.

What value does a link to a source that's not held to any standard to be informative do? Seems a waste of everyone's time to me.

[gs17]

Yes, I'd rather have it cited as an unreliable source than uncited. Every human will happily regurgitate misinformation they've absorbed unknowingly, so it's not that much worse than a confident human comment with no real citation besides themself.

However, I also think it's valid to question what it adds to a conversation if someone is quoting it verbatim. Would we be happier if HN was like Quora and automatically added an AI response to everything?