I feel like there's some semantic slippage around the meaning of the word "accuracy" here.
I grant you, my print Encyclopedia Britannica is not 100% accurate. But the difference between it and a LLM is not just a matter of degree: there's a "chain of custody" to information that just isn't there with a LLM.
Philosophers have a working definition of knowledge as being (at least†) "justified true belief."
Even if a LLM is right most of the time and yields "true belief", it's not justified belief and therefore cannot yield knowledge at all.
Knowledge is Google's raison d'etre and they have no business using it unless they can solve or work around this problem.
† Yes, I know about the Gettier problem, but is not relevant to the point I'm making here.
I grant you, my print Encyclopedia Britannica is not 100% accurate. But the difference between it and a LLM is not just a matter of degree: there's a "chain of custody" to information that just isn't there with a LLM.
Philosophers have a working definition of knowledge as being (at least†) "justified true belief."
Even if a LLM is right most of the time and yields "true belief", it's not justified belief and therefore cannot yield knowledge at all.
Knowledge is Google's raison d'etre and they have no business using it unless they can solve or work around this problem.
† Yes, I know about the Gettier problem, but is not relevant to the point I'm making here.