Putting an LLM to process the output of a search in a repository of scientific papers isn't going to automatically make the output useful or accurate. Papers aren't necessarily high quality just because they've been published.

For someone who likes to get riled up about people not responding to "what you said", this whole tangent about the accuracy of RAG and the fact scientific papers aren't automatically 100% reliable is pretty hilarious. Literally nobody was arguing that it makes it "automatically useful or accurate" or that published papers are "necessarily high-quality".

You're genuinely acting like you're taking issue with terminology describing a process because that process isn't perfect. "RAG" adequately describes a general technique to improve the accuracy of an output of a query to an LLM, and all you're doing now is pissing and moaning that "um, just because it's published doesn't mean it's *high-quality" – which has categorical fuck-all to do with the usefulness of the term.

We'll continue to use it, and you're welcome to continue being annoyeed by it.

PS: I write material that LLMs are trained on as a hobby; sorry if it annoys you that my writing style is coincidentally similar.