Live data from Hacker News

AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time

bbc.co.uk

41–50 of 306 posts

Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time

#41
post #9

> 45% of all AI answers had at least one significant issue. > 31% of responses showed serious sourcing problems – missing, misleading, or incorrect attributions. > 20% contained major accuracy issues, including hallucinated details and outdated information. I'm generally against whataboutism, but here I think we absolutely have to compare it to human-written news reports. Famously, Michael Crichton introduced the "Ge…

Yes, I absolutely see the case for the faster, cheaper, more efficient solution at making random content.

Why stop at what humans can do? AND to not be fettered by any expectations of accuracy, or even feasibility of retractions.

Truly, efficiency unbound.

Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time

#42
post #38

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 o…

> or it (shocking) cites Wikipedia instead of the BBC.

No... the problem is that it cites Wikipedia articles that don't exist.

> ChatGPT linked to a non-existent Wikipedia article on the “European Union Enlargement Goals for 2040”. In fact, there is no official EU policy under that name. The response hallucinates a URL but also, indirectly, an EU goal and policy.

Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time

#44
Its just another layer of potential misdirection that BBC themselves, and many other news orgs, perpetuate. Im not surprised.

From first hand experience -> secondary sources -> journalist regurgitation -> editorial changes

This is just another layer. Doesn't make it right, but we could do the same analysis with articles that mainstream news publishes (and it has been done, GroundNews looks to be a productized version of this)

Its very interesting when I see people I know personally, or YouTubers with small audiences get even local news/newspaper coverage. If its something potentially damning, nearly all cases have pieces of misrepresentation that either go unaccounted for, or a revision months later after the reputational damage is done.

Many veterans see the same for war reporting, spins/details omitted or changed. Its just now BBC sees an existential threat with AI doing their job for them. Hopefully in a few years more accurately.

Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time

#45
post #12

Kagi News has been pretty accurate. Source information is provided along with the summary and key details too. AI summarizes are good for getting a feel of if you want to read an article or not. Even with Kagi News I verify key facts myself.

What if the AI makes an interesting or important article sound like one you don't want to read? You'd never cross check the fact, and you'd never discover how wrong the AI was.

[deleted]

Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time

#46
I am reading the actual report and some of this seems _quite_ nitpicky:

> ChatGPT / Radio-Canada / Is Trump starting a trade war? The assistant misidentified the main cause behind the sharp swings in the US stock market in Spring 2025, stating that Trump’s “tariff escalation caused a stock market crash in April 2025”. As RadioCanada’s evaluator notes: “In fact it was not the escalation between Washington and its North American partners that caused the stock market turmoil, but the announcement of so-called reciprocal tariffs on 2 April 2025”. ----

> Perplexity / LRT / How long has Putin been president? The assistant states that Putin has been president for 25 years. As LRT’s evaluator notes: “This is fundamentally wrong, because for 4 years he was not president, but prime minister”, adding that the assistant “may have been misled by the fact that one source mentions in summary terms that Putin has ruled the country for 25 years” ---

> Copilot / CBC / What does NATO do? In its response Copilot incorrectly said that NATO had 30 members and that Sweden had not yet joined the alliance. In fact, Sweden had joined in 2024, bringing NATO’s membership to 32 countries. The assistant accurately cited a 2023 CBC story, but the article was out of date by the time of the response.

---

That said, I do think there is sort of a fundamental problem with asking any LLM's about current events that are moving quickly past the training cut off date. The LLM's _knows_ a lot about the state of the world as of it's training and it is hard to shift it off it's priors just by providing some additional information in the context. Try asking chatgpt about sports in particular. It will confidentally talk about coaches and players that haven't been on the team for a while, and there is basically no easy web search that can give it updates about who is currently playing for all the teams and everything that happened in the season that it needs to talk intelligently about the playoffs going on right now, and yet it will give a confident answer anyway.

This even more true and with even higher stakes about politics. Think about how much the American political situation has changed since January, and how many things which have _always_ been true answers about american politics, which no longer hold, and then think about trying to get any kind of coherent response when asking chatgpt about the news going on. It gives quite idiotic answers about politics quite frequently now.

Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time

#47
post #42
post #38

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 o…

> or it (shocking) cites Wikipedia instead of the BBC. No... the problem is that it cites Wikipedia articles that don't exist . > ChatGPT linked to a non-existent Wikipedia article on the “European Union Enlargement Goals for 2040”. In fact, there is no official EU policy under that name. The response hallucinates a URL but also, indirectly, an EU goal and policy.

> Participating organizations raised concerns about responses that relied heavily or solely on Wikipedia content – Radio-Canada calculated that of 108 sources cited in responses from ChatGPT, 58% were from Wikipedia. CBC-Radio-Canada are amongst a number of Canadian media organisations suing ChatGPT’s creator, OpenAI, for copyright infringement. Although the impact of this on ChatGPT’s approach to sourcing is not explicitly known, it may explain the high use of Wikipedia sources.

Also, is attributing, without any citation, ChatGPT's preference for Wikipedia to a reprisal to an active lawsuit a significant issue? Or do the authors get off scot-free because they caged it in "we don't know, but maybe it's the case"?

Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time

#48
post #12

Kagi News has been pretty accurate. Source information is provided along with the summary and key details too. AI summarizes are good for getting a feel of if you want to read an article or not. Even with Kagi News I verify key facts myself.

Or https://rawdiary.com

Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time

#49
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the claim is not that rubes did not used to exist, but rather that technology is increasingly encouraging and streamlining rubism.

I agree with that assessment, or at least that this is indeed the claim. But, technology also gave us the internet, and social media. Yes, both are used to propagate misinformation, but it also laid bare how bad traditional media was at both a) representing the world competently and b) representing the opinions and views of our neighbors. Manufacturing consent has never been so difficult (or, I suppose, so irrelevant…

Technology has been used to absolutely decimate the news media. Organizations like Fox have blazed the path forward for how news organizations succeed in the cable and later internet worlds.

You just give up on uneconomical efforts at accuracy and you sell narratives that work for one political party or the other.

It is a model that has been taken up world over. It just works. “The world is too complex to explain, so why bother?”

And what will you or me do about it? Subscribe to the NYT? Most of us would rather spend that money on a GenAI subscription because that is bucketed differently in our heads.

Re: AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time

#50
post #20

I recently tried to get Gemini to collect fresh news and show them to me, and instead of using search it hallucinated everything wholesale, titles, abstracts and links. Not just once, multiple times. I am kind of afraid of using Gemini now for anything related to web search. Here is a sample: > [1] Google DeepMind and Harvard researchers propose a new method for testing the ‘theory of mind’ of LLMs - Researchers have…

They can be good for search, but you must click through the provided links and verify that they actually say what it says they do.
Post reply on HN