> I really wish there is a way to fact check all, instead of depending on good samaritans in a comment on HN to point these obvious misconceptions out.
You mean like reading original sources? Frequently, big research projects like this come with an official paper[1] and/or blog post[2] explaining what they did.
I wonder how long until we can just use LLMs to do that for us - first summarizing a blog post (already something we've seen many examples of LLMs doing) but focusing on extracting factual claims, then using those as context when injesting linked sources to output to find what in the sources actually backs up the claims or if anything in the source goes against the claims made