Rendered at 16:56:45 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
wrs 49 minutes ago [-]
Same is true of Google search “summaries” where quite often I click on the link provided and it doesn’t support the statement Google made.
BTW, this post would be more convincing if it wasn’t written in Claude voice itself!
chicken-stew 33 minutes ago [-]
There’s a fun variation in W-Europe that google needs to spend some time on:
Northern Belgium and the Netherlands have web content in the same language. But google uses the content in one lump. Problem is when you search for employment/fiscal/legal/… you constantly get content that applies to the wrong nationality.
taeric 20 minutes ago [-]
This is true of a ton of online discourse. Worse, when the headline of a claim doesn't even match the article it is fronting. I've seen more than a few articles that basically contradict the headline, but end in a "despite all evidence, we think it is correct to say X."
abdullahkhalids 56 minutes ago [-]
If you are building your own harness that does correct citations, is the correct thing to give AI access to some deterministic tool that allows is to actually deterministically copy paste parts of documents its reading (with links), rather than stochastic copy paste that they do by default?
realsarm 2 minutes ago [-]
You can just look at nouswise or nblm. They do have such harness behind.
Gecko4072 2 hours ago [-]
I noticed this personally. Saw a citation with a preview for source A, which I knew was reliable. Checked, and it referenced a Reddit article and various other less reliable sources. Was a direct citation too that actually wasn't.
betree 59 minutes ago [-]
100% my experience with this service. The intent is good, but it seems they're still in the "fake it until you make it" stage.
hek2sch 4 minutes ago [-]
To be honest perplexity does nothing to make sure it's answer are correct let alone the citations. They just look plausible. For anything little bit serious I use nouswise or nblm that sometimes abstain instead of making things up.
What is that supposed to mean? They're trying to be an llm search engine that's not some radical new concept
automatic6131 32 minutes ago [-]
>The intent is good, but it seems they're still in the "fake it until you make it" stage
Please notice the internal contradictions here.
asmodeuslucifer 24 minutes ago [-]
That's the one that powers Truth Social
Trump Media and Technology Group announced that it partnered with Perplexity to test and integrate an AI search feature, referred to as Truth Social AI or Truth Search AI, directly into the Truth Social platform.
(I just use the free account from truth+ to waste their money)
how do you reverse a linked list in python
Answers
Sources
Use either an iterative pointer-reversal approach or a recursive approach. The standard iterative version is the most common and runs in (O(n)) time with (O(1)) extra space:
class ListNode:
def __init__(self, val=0, next=None):
self.val = val
self.next = next
If you already have a Python list, reversing it is simpler with slicing: items[::-1], but that is not a linked list reversal.
motbus3 1 hours ago [-]
I felt that myself.
And I have the same problem with gemini
gamblor956 57 minutes ago [-]
This is why lawyers have been getting in trouble using AI to review case law or (worse) to generate documents.
It creates citations and references that look close enough to be plausible but are just made up of thin air. CA passed a law explicitly requiring lawyers to review AI-generated documents that is now before the governor for signing (previously, lawyers were ethically expected to review documents submitted to the court or provided to clients but that doesn't have the same level of force as an explicit requirement).
BS machine produces BS; in other news water is wet and sky is blue.
Spivak 1 hours ago [-]
What's surprising about this is that you can get the bullshit machine to produce correct externally validate citations. It's not particularly hard either—it's one of the first things you build when you give an LLM access to a body of documents/search. So for a large public service to whiff like this is certainly a stain on their credibility.
delichon 1 hours ago [-]
On the other hands it's a boost to their credibility that they make their mistakes easier to evaluate than their competition does. It would be worse if they had a similar error rate without openly providing references. Kudos to Perplexity for including more empirical attack surface.
tempfile 38 minutes ago [-]
> you can get the bullshit machine to produce correct externally validate citations
BTW, this post would be more convincing if it wasn’t written in Claude voice itself!
Northern Belgium and the Netherlands have web content in the same language. But google uses the content in one lump. Problem is when you search for employment/fiscal/legal/… you constantly get content that applies to the wrong nationality.
What is that supposed to mean? They're trying to be an llm search engine that's not some radical new concept
Please notice the internal contradictions here.
Trump Media and Technology Group announced that it partnered with Perplexity to test and integrate an AI search feature, referred to as Truth Social AI or Truth Search AI, directly into the Truth Social platform.
(I just use the free account from truth+ to waste their money)
how do you reverse a linked list in python
Answers Sources Use either an iterative pointer-reversal approach or a recursive approach. The standard iterative version is the most common and runs in (O(n)) time with (O(1)) extra space:
class ListNode: def __init__(self, val=0, next=None): self.val = val self.next = next
def reverse_list(head): prev = None curr = head
If you already have a Python list, reversing it is simpler with slicing: items[::-1], but that is not a linked list reversal.It creates citations and references that look close enough to be plausible but are just made up of thin air. CA passed a law explicitly requiring lawyers to review AI-generated documents that is now before the governor for signing (previously, lawyers were ethically expected to review documents submitted to the court or provided to clients but that doesn't have the same level of force as an explicit requirement).
How?