As others have already pointed out, feeding these new articles aren't magically going to make them any more accurate. These hallucinations are going to be on top of any errors in the data sources.
I'm not replying to point that out, I think others have done a better job. It's mostly that this conversation made me think of this classic Babbage quote that I've always enjoyed.
"On two occasions I have been asked, – 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question"
Except when that happens, a clarification is almost always added at the bottom of the article ("This article was amended on [date]. An earlier version said xxx" or some variation thereof).
You're not gonna get a second push notification from an AI summary saying "Oopsies, the previous notification was wrong". Once it's out, it's out, and that sort of damage is difficult to repair.
Yes, but that's going to be on top of the ~1.3% hallucination rate (largely, there's always some very small chance it hallucinates the truth when the article had it wrong - but basically not worth considering).
I'm not replying to point that out, I think others have done a better job. It's mostly that this conversation made me think of this classic Babbage quote that I've always enjoyed.
"On two occasions I have been asked, – 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question"