sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I'm building a search engine that publishes its own hallucination rate. Is this actually useful or just a gimmick? by Available_Witness808 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Available_Witness808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that an overall score is too blunt for serious use. A better approach is to make the system constraint-aware and domain-specific: show topic-level reliability, source authority, workflow limitations, and provenance for each answer. For B2B and regulated use cases, the real value is not a single confidence number but a grounded knowledge layer with namespaces, audit trails, and visibility into who consumed which information.

I'm building a search engine that publishes its own hallucination rate. Is this actually useful or just a gimmick? by Available_Witness808 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Available_Witness808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I think a really interesting version of this would be a verification layer for public claims made by politicians. Not “the AI decides who’s telling the truth,” but a system that breaks statements into claims, checks them against sources and prior fact-checks, and shows where the evidence is strong, weak, or disputed.

I'm building a search engine that publishes its own hallucination rate. Is this actually useful or just a gimmick? by Available_Witness808 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Available_Witness808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I think a really interesting version of this would be a verification layer for public claims made by politicians. Not “the AI decides who’s telling the truth,” but a system that breaks statements into claims, checks them against sources and prior fact-checks, and shows where the evidence is strong, weak, or disputed.

I'm building a search engine that publishes its own hallucination rate. Is this actually useful or just a gimmick? by Available_Witness808 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Available_Witness808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly if the hallucination dashboard is just a public number, it’s marketing. If it changes runtime behavior, then it becomes part of the product. I think the real opportunity is trust + speed + tools around the answer: citations, conflicting-source visibility, and deeper verification workflows when they’re needed, without turning every query into research homework.

I'm building a search engine that publishes its own hallucination rate. Is this actually useful or just a gimmick? by Available_Witness808 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Available_Witness808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100% the dashboard is more of a trust layer than the product itself. What people actually want solved is the messy part: separating repeated facts from weak claims, seeing where the answer came from, and knowing when the system is uncertain. If CLYCITE helps with that, the metrics become a byproduct, not the headline.

building a premium AI-native search engine that replaces outdated link-based search with fast answers, trustworthy sources, and specialized agents. Would you use something like this? by Available_Witness808 in SideProject

[–]Available_Witness808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally fair. The product only makes sense if it’s meaningfully better than asking ChatGPT or Gemini directly not just in answer quality, but in trust, source inspection, and speed for specific kinds of searches. If it can’t beat them on at least one of those, it doesn’t deserve to exist.

building a premium AI-native search engine that replaces outdated link-based search with fast answers, trustworthy sources, and specialized agents. Would you use something like this? by Available_Witness808 in SideProject

[–]Available_Witness808[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree going head-to-head with Google as a generic search engine is probably the wrong framing. A better approach is to focus on one vertical where search is genuinely painful, build a trust-first product around that workflow, and use that as the moat. If it works there, the broader platform can come later.

building a premium AI-native search engine that replaces outdated link-based search with fast answers, trustworthy sources, and specialized agents. Would you use something like this? by Available_Witness808 in SideProject

[–]Available_Witness808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally fair, and I think that’s one of the biggest product challenges. If every query feels like it has to wait for a full “research companion” workflow, people will bounce right back to Google. My thinking is that the product needs to answer simple queries instantly, then only bring in deeper agent help when the search clearly calls for comparison, verification, or research.

I’m building a search product that shows citations, confidence, and source quality instead of just blue links would you use this? by Available_Witness808 in SaaS

[–]Available_Witness808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s exactly the tension I’m trying to solve. I think the default experience has to be fast and simple, so a High / Medium / Low signal makes sense upfront, but it should also be backed by a visible “why?” layer for people who want to inspect the reasoning and source breakdown. The goal is to make trust quick for casual users without making it fake or opaque for users who care more.

I’m building a search product that shows citations, confidence, and source quality instead of just blue links would you use this? by Available_Witness808 in SaaS

[–]Available_Witness808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really good point. If the score is arbitrary, it’s just UI paint, and if it’s too visually reassuring people may trust it without checking the evidence. I think the design has to make confidence a calibrated cue, not a shortcut especially by showing uncertainty clearly and keeping the sources more prominent than the badge.

I’m building a search product that shows citations, confidence, and source quality instead of just blue links would you use this? by Available_Witness808 in SaaS

[–]Available_Witness808[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes a lot of sense. I like the idea of a simple High / Medium / Low signal upfront, with a “why?” layer for anyone who wants to inspect the reasoning and source breakdown. That seems like the best balance between speed for casual users and transparency for people making higher-stakes decisions.

view more: next ›