[rbanffy]

I trust a defective AI a lot more than I trust Fox News ;-)

Now, more seriously, it'd need to put together a coherent argument and back it up with reputable sources, as just citing sources is very ineffective. The article I cited gives more details on possible approaches to that.

[jajko]

People eternally hoping that some new trick will finally make the other people understand how their side of the story/argument is one and only truly truthful. I guess this is old as mankind.

With your argument, the problem happens when given person goes to Fox news in the first place. Selection of the source has already been made, with its biases. Not much you can do or expect after this point.

Also, who curates the curator? Again an age old problem with no real, long term working solution in sight. No, you should not expect some statistical model to hold your hand through vast internet, while giving up any form of critical thinking, reasoning, or I guess any cerebral process altogether. Ultimate laziness. Since we know how much money there is in diet fad business, its safe to say this above will find its non-tiny desperate crowd.

[rbanffy]

> their side of the story/argument is one and only truly truthful.

There are no sides in objective reality. You might offer competing hypotheses and evidence for those, but we don’t need to do that to know that climate change is real, that it’s caused by humans, and that vaccines work.