> an Engaget article that is covering a CNN article that got the facts wrong, since it relied on anonymous sources that were disgruntled employees that had since left the agency.
It is inaccurate though. Those employees never used the system, and incorrectly cited what it is used for. I did some legwork before I drew my conclusions.
EDIT: citing some resources here for those that are curious.
EDIT: citing some resources here for those that are curious.
Original article cited by the paper: https://www.engadget.com/ai/fda-employees-say-the-agencys-el...
Actual CNN article the Engadget article is based on: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/politics/fda-ai-elsa-drug-reg...
Neither present a serious take about what's going on with Elsa at the FDA. They both glom onto a handful of anonymous sources without looking deeper.
A far more serious take about Elsa's use at the FDA in a journal that prides itself on scientific rigor and ethical behavior: https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/elsa-llm-at-the-fda-a-...