←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: 0.244s | 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. pwlm ◴[22 Oct 25 20:28 UTC] No.45674739[source]▶
Sometimes they do random fabrication. I saw one AI cite a paper that didn't exist. Fictitious title, authors, and results.