> I think it's likely the ability to determine what is true and what isn't will come from a capability of the model rather than it being told what is and isn't true. It's not possible to mark text as true or not true as this assumes whomever is mafking these things is the sole authority on the truth and never makes mistakes.

I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. The issue isn't that GPT3 has wrong opinions about stuff. The issue is that it doesn't have any opinions about what is real or isn't whatsoever. Of course any future AI will operate on limited and flawed information and thus have opinions that are not perfectly true. But before we can even get to that point a model needs to even have the idea of "real" and "not real" as fundamental categories. For GPT3 everything is just text, Harry Potter is as real as Obama. Maybe I am wrong and inference can actually get you there through pure consistency checks, as you say. But we will have to see about that.