Check your fucking sources, people • Hacker News Board

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#81

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 15, 2026, 9:40 PM UTC

flail wrote: post #62

throw310822 wrote: post #15

> Ops, the link doesn’t lead to the study, but to another article. But that article, in turn, has a link of its own. Which leads to yet another article that doesn’t even mention the study anymore. This is a common, infuriating practice: provides a veneer of authoritativeness and credibility to newspaper articles, and who is ever going to click on the links that support those very cogent claims? Nobody of course, so t…

That thought crossed my mind. However, for such a product to work, there would have to be a human in the loop. With data-starved edge cases, which are many in fact-checking landscape, it would be relatively easy for an LLM to make stuff up or mislabel the context (which it inherently does not understand). Also, thorough validation would cost a ton in tokens. So it would be both expensive from the tech perspective (AI…

[deleted]

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#82

Post by Kim_Bruning » Fri, May 15, 2026, 9:56 PM UTC

flail wrote: post #63

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quick smoke check takes just a few minutes. "Follow each link in this document. Read each link's contents against the contents in this document. Create a report: for each link list a working hyperlink, whether it exists, what claim it supports, whether it supports or fails to support it, and why" If it returns a report claiming all correct? That's promising, but human verification is important. You've got a list of…

A quick smoke test, then. Gemini 3, Thinking Mode. The article: https://techtrenches.dev/p/the-human-cost-of-10x-how-ai-is-p... The prompt: literally what you suggested. Gemini: The article focuses on the environmental and human labor costs of scaling Artificial Intelligence, specifically focusing on water usage, electricity, and "ghost work." Which is hilarious, since the article doesn't even mention the words "wate…

> Now, I know. Had I used Claude Code with relevant skills, it would have done better. But would it be good?

Wait. Why do I suddenly suspect you were on to me this whole time?

Very Well. Here's a skill that does the thing; you tell me: https://vps.kimbruning.nl/link-verifier.skill

While building, I realized I could actually make the whole thing a lot better, and really dig into sources. But... it's a start.

+ Output on your url. Ugly, but works: https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/d465a07b-378c-4089-b885-6...

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#83

Post by andai » Fri, May 15, 2026, 10:11 PM UTC

flail wrote: post #59

andai wrote: post #42

When Bard (now known as Gemini) first came out in Europe, I think mid 2023, I tested it out. AI search was still a new thing in those days, and I was excited to see what Google's solution would be like. I had high hopes. I asked it a question I knew the answer to. It searched the web, and told me the opposite of the truth. (Not nonsense, but a logical inversion of the actual fact. A common failure mode with earlier L…

Fundamentally, yes, it is a different "search engine." BTW, as critical as I can be to AI, using an argument that something didn't work 3 years ago, so it must be crap, doesn't work in this context. 3 years ago, AI could barely generate several lines of consistent code. Now, it generates working apps with a prompt (it's another discussion how good the code is, but still). I guess 3 years ago, Gemini couldn't tell how…

> 3 years ago, AI could barely generate several lines of consistent code

Nah, not really. The same summer I made a self-modifying AI programmer. Or more precisely, GPT-4 made it. I copy pasted the classes from the chat one by one.

(I also told it what was wrong with the previous attempt at such a system, so it designed around that.)

That model was also scary good at deobfuscation.

I think it did have that issue about randomly saying the opposite of facts though (the fact but stated in the negative for some reason).

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#84

Post by justin66 » Sat, May 16, 2026, 3:10 PM UTC

teddyh wrote: post #55

justin66 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did anyone actually believe that was anything more than a joke? It was a disgusting and weird thing to suggest about a disgusting and weird guy, and highly immature, but it's only libel if it's presented as being true.

In only slightly more isolated regions of the internet than here, it used to be, when this story was new, that whenever this story was brought up, with dozens or more credulous comments with varying attempts at humor, there was at least one person who commented that it was fake, often with citations. As time went on, for each new instance, the number of comments dwindled, and the lone debunking comment appeared more…

> commented that it was fake, often with citations

Citations. I'll admit that I'm starting feel like I am culturally out of my depth somehow.

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#85

Post by pllbnk » Mon, May 18, 2026, 12:33 PM UTC

louiereederson wrote: post #13

Late last year I tried asking ChatGPT to summarize a collection of 10 researchers' views/findings on a topic and provide representative quotes. It initially looked plausible but when I checked the links, the quotes were from clearly AI generated summaries of actual interviews. The paraphrasing was also plausible but subtly and profoundly incorrect. I haven't tested this again on the latest models though, so not sure…

Claude has a research mode. I tried using it multiple times in the domains that I know quite well. Basically, used it with the hopes to save me time by aggregating the information I needed. I used it multiple times with different approaches and it never did anything useful. Full of factually incorrect and outdated information. I know that I could never hope to even slightly trust it for anything I don't have knowledge in.

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#86

Post by teddyh » Tue, May 19, 2026, 11:01 AM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #84

teddyh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In only slightly more isolated regions of the internet than here, it used to be, when this story was new, that whenever this story was brought up, with dozens or more credulous comments with varying attempts at humor, there was at least one person who commented that it was fake, often with citations. As time went on, for each new instance, the number of comments dwindled, and the lone debunking comment appeared more…

> commented that it was fake, often with citations Citations. I'll admit that I'm starting feel like I am culturally out of my depth somehow.

Are you asking me for citations?

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#87

Post by tinfoilhatter » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:48 PM UTC

wat10000 wrote: post #80

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said you should trust my links, you should do your own research. What I did say is that bias is impossible to avoid and I implied that believing that there's a source of objective truth on the internet because it's been deemed to be so by some authority, is misguided.

Oh, please. You gave me links you said would “demonstrate” your claims. Then you preemptively attacked me for not buying it. Meanwhile, all I said about these sites is that they have a good track record and that they give you enough information to do your own research to check their conclusions. But apparently you’re opposed to that when I’m doing it and not reaching the conclusions you want me to reach.

Where did I attack you lol? The only time I said the word demonstrate, which you put quotes around, is when I said that I could demonstrate they receive funding from big / tech and philanthropic organizations whose narratives they promote.

They only have a good track record if you believe in the lies peddled by the groups and people they receive funding from. If you can't perceive a conflict of interest that exists between a fact-checking company receiving funding from Zuckerberg that is employed on a social-media network he owns, I don't know what to tell you.

Re: Check your fucking sources, people

#88

Post by tinfoilhatter » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:51 PM UTC

flail wrote: post #61

tinfoilhatter wrote: post #8

It's amazing that people think Snopes or other "fact-checkers" are reliable sources of information and represent ultimate truth, as if they're immune to bias and don't receive funding from people / organizations with their own agendas.

Um, is Snopes wrong about city cleaning crows, though? As that was the context of the original post. Which, by the way, doesn't say "Go, trust Snopes with everything; they can't be wrong!"

The context of the original post was that people should check the sources they are sharing with others, and Snopes was suggested as a source worth sharing. I disagree that Snopes is a reliable source of information or has any interest in presenting a fair and balanced narrative, because of the conflict of interest created by who / what groups fund them. Same with Politifact, or any other fact-checking organization.