←back to thread

423 points sohkamyung | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
scarmig ◴[] No.45669929[source]
If you dig into the actual report (I know, I know, how passe), you see how they get the numbers. Most of the errors are "sourcing issues": the AI assistant doesn't cite a claim, or it (shocking) cites Wikipedia instead of the BBC.

Other issues: the report doesn't even say which particular models it's querying [ETA: discovered they do list this in an appendix], aside from saying it's the consumer tier. And it leaves off Anthropic (in my experience, by far the best at this type of task), favoring Perplexity and (perplexingly) Copilot. The article also intermingles claims from the recent report and the one on research conducted a year ago, leaving out critical context that... things have changed.

This article contains significant issues.

replies(7): >>45669943 #>>45670942 #>>45671401 #>>45672311 #>>45672577 #>>45675250 #>>45679322 #
FooBarWidget ◴[] No.45670942[source]
I wouldn't even say BBC is a good source to cite. For foreign news, BBC is outright biased. Though I don't have any good suggestions for what an LLM should cite instead.
replies(5): >>45670973 #>>45671004 #>>45671010 #>>45671084 #>>45675034 #
542458 ◴[] No.45671004[source]
Reuters or AP IMO. Both take NPOV and accuracy very seriously. Reuters famously wouldn't even refer to the 9/11 hijackers as terrorists, as they wanted to remain as value-neutral as possible.
replies(2): >>45671156 #>>45671571 #
1. sdoering ◴[] No.45671156[source]
In addition to that dpa from Germany for German news. Yes, dpa has had issues, but it is in my experience by far the source trying to be as non partisan as possible. Not necessarily when they sell their online feed business, though.

Disclaimer: Started my career in onine journalism/aggregation. Hada 4 week internship with the dpa online daughter some 16 years ago.