Update with fp32 example

README.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ npm i @huggingface/transformers
 import { pipeline } from "@huggingface/transformers";
 
 // Create a text generation pipeline
-const generator = await pipeline("text-generation", "onnx-community/Pleias-Pico", { dtype: "q8" });
+const generator = await pipeline("text-generation", "onnx-community/Pleias-Pico", { dtype: "fp32" });
 
 // Construct RAG prompt
 const prompt = `
@@ -39,21 +39,22 @@ console.log(output[0].generated_text);
 <summary>Example output</summary>
 
 ```
-The user is asking about the reliability of Wikipedia's content, specifically in relation to its accuracy and the potential for future changes. They are concerned about whether the current system is reliable and whether there are any signs of improvement. The references provided include a detailed analysis of Wikipedia's reliability, the impact of peer review, and the potential for future improvements.
+The user is asking about the reliability of Wikipedia's content compared to other encyclopedias. The references provided include a variety of sources discussing Wikipedia's reliability, the impact of its structure, and the challenges faced by Wikipedia in maintaining its credibility. 
 
-The most relevant references for answering this query are:
-1. **ebea70a3502acfbd**: This reference provides a detailed analysis of the reliability of Wikipedia, including specific studies and criticisms.
-2. **5f862e733d38288e**: This reference discusses the importance of transparency and the potential for future improvements in Wikipedia's content.
-3. **354fa4908152b336**: This reference highlights the efforts of Wikipedia to strengthen its rules and the potential for future changes.
-Wikipedia's reliability is a critical aspect of its content, and it is essential for maintaining the trust of users. According to a recent study, the reliability of Wikipedia is "the most reliable source of information" for the United States, with a high level of accuracy<ref name="ebea70a3502acfbd">"The most reliable source of information for the United States is Wikipedia, with a high level of accuracy."</ref>. This reliability is supported by the fact that "Wikipedia is the most reliable source of information for the United States"<ref name="ebea70a3502acfbd">"Wikipedia is the most reliable source of information for the United States."</ref>.
+**ebea70a3502acfbd** discusses the accuracy of Wikipedia's entries compared to other encyclopedias like Encyclopædia Britannica, noting that while some entries are accurate, others are not. It also highlights the issue of humanities subjects being overlooked in Wikipedia.
 
-However, there are several factors that can affect the reliability of Wikipedia. One significant concern is the lack of transparency and the potential for future improvements. As noted, "the average science entry in Wikipedia contains around four inaccuracies"<ref name="ebea70a3502acfbd">"the average science entry in Wikipedia contains around four inaccuracies"</ref>. This suggests that while the content is reliable, there may be room for improvement, particularly regarding the handling of inaccuracies.
+**5f862e733d38288e** addresses the lack of accountability and the potential for misinformation in Wikipedia, which can affect its credibility. It also mentions the importance of transparency and the need for Wikipedia to be open and verifiable.
 
-Additionally, the structure of Wikipedia itself, which is open-access, has been criticized for its lack of accountability. The article "5f862e733d38288e" highlights that "no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it"<ref name="5f862e733d38288e">"no one is ultimately responsible for any claims appearing in it"</ref>. This indicates that the content is not entirely reliable, which could lead to further scrutiny and potential changes.
+**354fa4908152b336** provides context on the structure and content of Wikipedia, emphasizing its openness and the potential for abuse. It also mentions the legal and ethical concerns surrounding its content.
+Wikipedia's reliability is a significant concern, as it is a widely recognized and trusted encyclopedia. However, its content can be subject to various forms of misinformation and human rights violations.
 
-Furthermore, the efforts of Wikipedia to strengthen its rules and the transparency surrounding them have been noted. For example, the article in The Wall Street Journal has emphasized the importance of transparency and the potential for future changes in the rules governing Wikipedia<ref name="354fa4908152b336">"Beginning Monday [from the date of the article, June 16, 2014], changes in Wikipedia's terms of use will require anyone paid to edit articles to disclose that arrangement."</ref>.
+One major issue is the lack of accountability in Wikipedia. According to **5f862e733d38288e**, "Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects" due to the lack of transparency and the potential for misinformation<ref name="5f862e733d38288e">"Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."</ref>. This suggests that while Wikipedia is a reliable source, it may not always provide accurate information about its content.
 
-In conclusion, while Wikipedia is a reliable source of information, there are several factors that can affect its reliability, including the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability, and the need for further improvements in the rules and transparency. Future improvements, such as transparency and the establishment of new rules, are being considered to enhance the reliability of Wikipedia.
+Another challenge is the potential for abuse. The structure of Wikipedia, as described in **354fa4908152b336**, includes provisions for paid editing and spamming, which can lead to misinformation and abuse<ref name="354fa4908152b336">"Beginning Monday [from the date of the article, June 16, 2014], changes in Wikipedia's terms of use will require anyone paid to edit articles to disclose that arrangement."</ref>. This highlights the need for Wikipedia to be open and verifiable, as it can help maintain its credibility.
+
+Additionally, the structure of Wikipedia itself, as outlined in **ebea70a3502acfbd**, emphasizes the importance of transparency and the need for Wikipedia to be open and verifiable<ref name="ebea70a3502acfbd">"Wikipedia may not have fared so well using a random sampling of articles or on humanities subjects."</ref>. This underscores the importance of maintaining a clear and verifiable content structure to ensure that Wikipedia remains a reliable source.
+
+In summary, while Wikipedia is a reliable encyclopedia, its content can be subject to misinformation and human rights violations. The lack of transparency and the potential for abuse are significant concerns. Ensuring that Wikipedia remains open and verifiable is crucial for maintaining its credibility and ensuring that its content remains trustworthy.
 ```
 </details>