It probably is the case that most of the facts cited in the post came from LLM-generated research, and it’s true that I have no idea how many of them were checked against primary sources. This does not seem like a difference in kind from a post where most of the cited facts came from variety of NYTimes articles
I think there is a lot more reason to trust the facts cited in an NYT article. For one, the New York Times, along with most major news publications, has standards for fact checking. They try hard to get primary source validation, or at least secondary source validation (some of those guidelines are stated here); falsifying information is a fireable offense. They also have a reputation to uphold, a major part of which rests on their ability to convey the news truthfully. These kinds of checks don’t really exist for LLMs.
Nor do we have much insight into how LLM information is generated. With news publications, we can at least understand the sorts of biases which might be introduced via the mechanisms under which stories are produced: people interviewing a bunch of people, maybe in misleading ways, leaving out some facts, etc. With LLMs, we have much less of an idea of what kind of errors might emerge, and hence what to mentally correct for, since we don’t understand the process that generates their outputs.
if anything I’d expect current frontier LLMs to be slightly safer to rely on in this way (maybe more hallucinations, but less actively adversarial “technically true but misleading” framings).
Perhaps this is just a personal difference, but I would much rather take “technically true but misleading” over “totally wrong but subtle enough and authoritative enough and seems-kind-of-right enough that you can barely notice unless you really dig into the claims or already have extensive background knowledge.”
I do not think you believe the correct update to have made, upon reading that section of the post, was “no update”.
My response upon reading that LLMs did substantial research or writing for a post is generally to not make any update. That doesn’t mean parts of it aren’t right, they likely are, it just means that it takes a ton of work for me to sus out what’s true (much more than for a human post, for reasons that Gwern outlined above), and it’s usually not worth it.
I think there is a lot more reason to trust the facts cited in an NYT article. For one, the New York Times, along with most major news publications, has standards for fact checking. They try hard to get primary source validation, or at least secondary source validation (some of those guidelines are stated here); falsifying information is a fireable offense. They also have a reputation to uphold, a major part of which rests on their ability to convey the news truthfully. These kinds of checks don’t really exist for LLMs.
Nor do we have much insight into how LLM information is generated. With news publications, we can at least understand the sorts of biases which might be introduced via the mechanisms under which stories are produced: people interviewing a bunch of people, maybe in misleading ways, leaving out some facts, etc. With LLMs, we have much less of an idea of what kind of errors might emerge, and hence what to mentally correct for, since we don’t understand the process that generates their outputs.
Perhaps this is just a personal difference, but I would much rather take “technically true but misleading” over “totally wrong but subtle enough and authoritative enough and seems-kind-of-right enough that you can barely notice unless you really dig into the claims or already have extensive background knowledge.”
My response upon reading that LLMs did substantial research or writing for a post is generally to not make any update. That doesn’t mean parts of it aren’t right, they likely are, it just means that it takes a ton of work for me to sus out what’s true (much more than for a human post, for reasons that Gwern outlined above), and it’s usually not worth it.