| An example of this. I've seen a certain sensationalist news source write a story that went like this. Site A: Bad thing is happening, cite: article Site B * follow the source * Site B: Bad thing is happening, cite different article on Site A * follow the source * Site A: Bad thing is happening, no citation. I fear that's the current state of a large news bubble that many people subscribe to. And when these sensationalist stories start circulating there's a natural human tendency to exaggerate. I don't think AI has any sort of real good defense to this sort of thing. 1 level of citation is already hard enough. Recognizing that it is citing the same source is hard enough. There was another example from the Kagi news stuff which exemplified this. A whole article written which made 3 citations that were ultimately spawned from the same new briefing published by different outlets. I've even seen an example of a national political leader who fell for the same sort of sensationalization. One who should have known better. They repeated what was later found to be a lie by a well-known liar but added that "I've seen the photos in a classified debriefing". IDK that it was necessarily even malicious, I think people are just really bad at separating credible from uncredible information and that it ultimately blends together as one thing (certainly doesn't help with ancient politicians). |