←back to thread

AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time

(www.bbc.co.uk)
421 points sohkamyung | 1 comments | 22 Oct 25 13:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
iainctduncan ◴[22 Oct 25 15:44 UTC] No.45670881[source]▶
I'm curious how many people have actually taken the time to compare AI summaries with sources they summarize. I did for a few and ... it was really bad. In my experience, they don't summarize at all, they do a random condensation.. not the same thing at all. In one instance I looked at the result was a key takeaway being the opposite of what it should have been. I don't trust them at all now.
replies(10): >>45671039 #>>45671541 #>>45671813 #>>45672108 #>>45672572 #>>45672678 #>>45673123 #>>45674739 #>>45674888 #>>45675283 #
1. Scubabear68 ◴[22 Oct 25 17:42 UTC] No.45672572[source]▶
Random condensation is a great way to put it. This is exactly what I see particularly in email and text summaries, they do not capture the gist of the message but instead just pull out random phrases that 99.9% of the time are not the gist at all. I have learned to completely ignore them.