Yea ok, eliminating misinformation is what we want to eventually do. But what we can sell is something that eliminates human errors (the backend also allows for that).
I think you could provide good things to Wikipedia with your tool. For instance, I recently read that earth spinning make earth 10^7 kg heavier. While the principle is corrShow HN: I'm 16 and building an AI based startup c...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40222051ect (energy is mass), the source is really weak and it can easily be found that earth mass uncertainty is about 10^20 kg. Which make the whole point useless.
I challenged your AI on this thematic : "a spring weight heavier when compressed", or "earth spinning make it heavier". Both results tell me it's not true despite it being correct (E=mc2).
I admit I'm cherrypicking, because it does say croissant is not French. But can I trust it blindly? That's why you must provide sources. It's valuable to have sources when we talk about truth.
Yea, that's why we also added in an grammar checker, even if they dont care about facts, they can get something better than gram marly that checks for way more for way less.
Yes, we checked it out, it seems pretty cool. What we aim to do, is creating a software that will check for everything, not just grammar or factuality. There is nothing in the market like it
