My first read of your comment was really confusing, because the article posted reporting on the invented scandal is _also_ a Washington Post article....
It doesn't combat this at all. The Internet is stuffed with keyword filled nonsense articles with long meandering intros due to their search algorithms flaws. Low quality is the standard
Have you used chatGPT? At least bing's version? It adds links right there too.
So when you prod it, you're not doing so "for the truth" (you also don't prod "for the truth" in general...), you're getting it to generate more information and potentially relevant sources.
I just did it. I asked for an argument about x, then prompted for counter opinions about the same subject - both times different links were added.
In the end, it's up to you to validate sources provided.
You have zero context in ChatGPT though. Like even if you don’t know or have an opinion about a specific website you’ll eventually form one if you keep accessing it.
This is a huge downside of GPT. Until it starts citing it’s exact sources it can’t be a reliable tool in most cases.
I think we need to be more clear than clever about this. ChatGPT seems to have made up a false claim on sexual harassment, it had no known antecedent articles discussing this, it wasn't like say Harvey Weinstein for whom there were lots of people saying he'd abused them before the court conviction. This person who was accused by chatgpt didn't have an undercurrent of claims. Right?