One of the consequences of encountering a lot of LLM generated text which includes things the model vaguely remembers from its training is that honestly I have grown less tolerant even of human comments and documents that are based on mostly ‘I seem to recall that…’ level sourcing.

In a discussion on economic history, say, someone will opine that Alexander Hamilton had some particular opinion about tariff policy… based on their having a vague memory of a blog post where someone quoted a passage in support of some point. But wait - you can search the federalist papers, the text’s right there to be read, before you commit to saying online ‘Hamilton thought tariffs were a great idea’ you could take your internal ‘I seem to recall reading something about hamilton’s opinion on tariffs’ thought and turn it into a little RAG query where you pull up a source and check before you put another factoid out onto the internet.

And so I feel absolutely the same way about LLMs. I don’t care how much factual information was in the training data, when the LLM wants to rely on something it vaguely recalls having been trained on, it owes it to me to dig up a source and vet it.

There are limits to this, of course. I don’t want it to be thinking ‘but wait, maybe my memory of Python syntax is faulty. Is = used for assignment? <web search>…’.

But in general some caution about repeating vaguely recalled easily checked facts is warranted.