The reason why Wikipedia is such a great first stop for knowledge is because it has citations you can follow.

With ChatGTP you have to take the information on pure trust, and the information it gives is not at a level you can trust yet.

Why couldn’t it also offer citations then. That sounds ideal actually.

Are we sure the citations were not written by Chatgpt too?

>> Explain briefly what the Fourier Transform is. Provide sources with more information about the topic.

>> The Fourier transform is a mathematical technique that decomposes a function or signal into its constituent frequencies. It allows us to represent a function in terms of the frequencies that make it up, rather than in terms of its time or spatial behavior.

The Fourier transform has many applications in a variety of fields, including signal and image processing, engineering, and physics. It is a fundamental tool in the analysis of periodic phenomena and is widely used in the study of waves and oscillations.

For more information about the Fourier transform, you may find the following resources helpful:

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

Khan Academy: https://www.khanacademy.org/math/differential-equations/lapl...

Wolfram MathWorld: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FourierTransform.html

Problem solved.

woah! No need for the "explain briefly" part but when I asked for 50 references it wanted money.

If you ask for an arxiv or pubmed link it also happily makes a link up. But the link just leads to a random paper.

No https for wolframalpha?

I could be mistaken but I think another ChatGPT discussion on HN had people saying it would sometimes cite sources, and other times just make them up.

Because neural network frameworks still offer no implements to trace output back to training data, or for that matter, means to compile an AI without brute forcing through parameters, and also because ChatGPT is not interpreting reference materials in text forms but talking from its "memory".

That sounds like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33910863 which was posted here on HN a few weeks ago. It's a ChatGPT-esque model that provides URLs for where it synthesized each individual sentence from, but also feels a lot more summary-heavy rather than strictly new text a la ChatGPT. The results leave quite a bit to be desired, but it's nice to know there are people working on exactly what you're suggesting. :)

OpenAI, specifically, has also been working on allowing GPT models to browse the internet and include citations with e.g. https://openai.com/blog/webgpt/

>The reason why Wikipedia is such a great first stop for knowledge is because it has citations you can follow.

I don't know the actual statistics, but it seems like in my experience, at least 50% of the time, the linked sources are dead links, or don't have the information they're purported to have.

Right, this is a huge problem. Wikipedia does not stick to purely scientific topics this pages become hotly debated and political. This isn’t a partisan thing, you can find examples going both ways, but since Wikipedia is not a telling of sourced facts[1] and can not be expected to cover all topics elaborately it has inadvertently controlled the flow of peoples understanding and id say even interests.

1. it actually has policy against this to make understanding sources simpler to the layman for any topic.

Indeed, the current iteration of ChatGPT can't access the internet, but a future iteration should be able to look up references from reliable sources and fact check itself.

I don't know, I've had it get a lot of really basic things wrong. Where do the pilots sit in a Cessna Skymaster? What are their responsibilities? Answers with basic math mistakes too.

Its amazing at some things, but there are foundational mistakes everywhere. Wikipedia has always had much higher quality overall.