[lovelearning]

The mere fact that editing is applied to newspapers, documentaries, or Wikipedia does not imply they become closer to the objective truth or free of omissions after the edits. Indeed, the edits may go the other way to align with vested business or political biases or personal fears of the editors or their management.

As for research papers, I agree that the peer review process makes them more much more self-correcting toward the objective truth, compared to the other formats. Nonetheless, it's well-known that academic research is far from perfect due to publication pressures, funding/grants, reproducibility crises, various biases (for example, political pressure in humanities fields).

[rithdmc]

Burn more tokens on this one, but the absence of an editor or peer reviewer also does not make it better.

[lovelearning]

> Burn more tokens on this one

Needless condescension and wrong assumption. No wonder so many people and students nowadays prefer answers (and even counseling) from LLMs instead of other people.

> but the absence of an editor or peer reviewer also does not make it better.

Strawman + putting words in my mouth.

[rithdmc]

It's not a wrong assumption, it's an insult.

I don't see how disputing up the claim that LLMs and books, newspapers, etc are equitable sources of information is a strawman. I look forward to your erudite vernacular which will not deal with the substance of my comment.