[edaemon]

I'm not the person you asked, but it's useful to know if the summary was generated using a method prone to inaccuracy.

[stavros]

That's all methods, though. Have you seen humans?

[motoxpro]

In this situation, humans are more accurate, for now, so it's good information to have.

Same as I would like to know if humans self assessed in a study about how well they drive vs the empirical evidence. Humans just aren't that good at that task so it would be good to know coming in.

Just call it Kagi Vibes instead of Kagi News as news has a higher bar (at least for me)

[willguest]

different kinds of inaccuracy

[edaemon]

Sure, but it's useful to know what kind of inaccuracies to look for.

[sph]

Someone needs to coin the fallacy that, when anyone criticises LLMs, the speaker retorts with "but how humans are any better?"

I've seen it so many times it definitely needs a name. As an entity of human intelligence, I am offended by these silly thought-terminating arguments.