• LNRDrone@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Wikipedia doesn’t give “legal advice”, it has information about these laws, with the sources cited.

    That is very different than asking LLM anything and it throws you random bullshit from unknown sources, with no easy way to verify where it is from or if it is at all accurate.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Wikipedia doesn’t give “legal advice”, it has information about these laws, with the sources cited.

      That is very different than asking LLM anything and it throws you random bullshit from unknown sources, with no easy way to verify where it is from or if it is at all accurate.

      It seems like your argument is that because Wikipedia “gets it right” and has cited sources, it isn’t liable? Which I promise, is not how liability works.

      What if it was Wikipedia versus “Some random sovcit facebook post” then? Is the Sovcit post liable because its sources are bullshit? Since there sources are random bullshit and or unknown, do they absorb liability? Again, its the same case, that is not how liability works.

      People are going to have to acknowledge you can’t have it both ways.

      Also…

      with no easy way to verify where it is from or if it is at all accurate.

      C’mon. Plenty of LLM’s can also hallucinate sources which are easily verified. And like with Wikipedia, one could go check them.