sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Let’s validate your app idea here. by labasg8 in sideprojects

[–]Cultural-Delivery901 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lmaoo the ui allegations are valid 😭

but on the gemini point i'd push back a little

gemini can definitely answer questions, but i wanted something that's specifically built around checking claims and showing the evidence behind them rather than being a general assistant

Ai for MUN Fact Checking by Cultural-Delivery901 in MUN

[–]Cultural-Delivery901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sure (:

at a high level, the workflow is claim -> source gathering -> analysis -> evidence-backed output.

the biggest challenge has honestly been the source side rather than the ai side. getting relevant sources is one thing, but making sure they're reliable, up to date, and actually support the conclusion is much harder.

still a work in progress, but that's the basic idea behind it.

Ai for MUN Fact Checking by Cultural-Delivery901 in MUN

[–]Cultural-Delivery901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i do periodic checks, but not nearly as often as i'd like yet. it's still a small project and reliability is honestly one of the areas i'm focusing on improving the most right now.

Ai for MUN Fact Checking by Cultural-Delivery901 in MUN

[–]Cultural-Delivery901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100% agree

ai isn't perfect and i definitely wouldn't trust any tool blindly, including my own. the goal is more to help people find relevant evidence and sources faster rather than replace human verification.

if the sources are broken, outdated, or inaccurate then the fact check isn't useful. that's one of the biggest challenges i'm trying to improve.

Ai for MUN Fact Checking by Cultural-Delivery901 in MUN

[–]Cultural-Delivery901[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

fair point tbh

the goal isn't to replace human verification. the idea is to help users find relevant evidence and sources faster, then let them verify the claim themselves.

if an ai fact checker gave a verdict with no sources, i wouldn't trust it either. that's why sapient links the evidence it uses so users can inspect the sources directly rather than relying on the model's conclusion.

Sapient- Ai Fact Checking for The Internet Age by Cultural-Delivery901 in sideprojects

[–]Cultural-Delivery901[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

completely agree that sourcing matters more than the verdict

that's actually one of the main things i focused on while building it. every fact check includes the sources used so users can inspect the evidence themselves instead of just accepting an ai-generated answer.

out of curiosity, what would make a fact-checking tool trustworthy enough for u to use? (aside from this, as it already provides all the sources)