I traced $2 billion in nonprofit grants and 45 states of lobbying records to figure out who’s behind the age verification bills. The answer involves a company that profits from your data writing laws that collect more of it.
I traced $2 billion in nonprofit grants and 45 states of lobbying records to figure out who’s behind the age verification bills. The answer involves a company that profits from your data writing laws that collect more of it.
This was written by an LLM, wasn’t it?
To all the people saying “but have you checked if it’s wrong”, think about what that implies. Someone can generate way more garbage using an LLM than you can verify. If we need to check it all first, before dismissing it, that means we need to just accept all LLM garbage, because it’s practically impossible to check it all. No, it should be dismissed first, and someone can check it to tell if it’s accurate. I don’t care that it supports your biases. This is much larger than that.
See “Methodology and Tools”: https://tboteproject.com/git/hekate/attestation-findings
Looks like I was right. Why repost this? I don’t believe this was ever truly reviewed by a human and Lemmy users won’t do it since most won’t read past the headline.
since you were right, can you review it for us? since we won’t read past the headlines & you pride yourself on being right, might as well dig in, no? let us know what you find in your review! thanks!
Why would I make this effort if the autor likely didn’t? If they did all the required research they wouldn’t need an LLM in the first place.
Are you disputing any of the listed external sources? Part of it is governments own federal fillings.
Yes, because those sources weren’t read by a human. They could state one thing while the LLM hallucinates another.
Unless you can point to incorrect primary source you are just wrong.
LLM output isn’t „correct unless proven wrong”, nothing ever is. LLMs aren’t a reliable technology for research and and all it has done so far is that it has lowered the bar on presenting plausible sounding text.
I’m not after plausible sounding text, I’m after truth, facts and human insights.
Don’t disagree. But again, have you checked those human written primary sources and have a particular dispute or are you just blindly saying everything is wrong without even checking the records for yourself?
Also as the diclaimer says LLMs weren’t used for research only for grunt work. You seem to only care about complaining without even having any particular issues to complain about.
ProPublica, OpenSecrets and US governments own fillings are human records which I checked and I can see they support the conclusion that was written.