Are you disputing any of the listed external sources? Part of it is governments own federal fillings.
Comment on An investigation of the forces behind the age-verification bills
misk@piefed.social 2 days agoLooks like I was right. Why repost this? I don’t believe this was ever truly reviewed by a human and Lemmy users won’t do it since most won’t read past the headline.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
misk@piefed.social 1 day ago
Yes, because those sources weren’t read by a human. They could state one thing while the LLM hallucinates another.
BrikoX@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Every factual claim in this repository cites a primary source (IRS filing, Senate disclosure, state database, legislative record, or published reporting) that can be independently verified. The tool does not change whether Meta’s LD-2 filing lists H.R. 3149, whether DCA has an EIN, or whether Stefanski admitted tech funding under oath. The records exist or they don’t.
Unless you can point to incorrect primary source you are just wrong.
misk@piefed.social 1 day ago
LLM output isn’t „correct unless proven wrong”, nothing ever is. It’s that there was no human effort involved and the technology won’t be ever reliable enough to trust it with research work.
orionsbelt@midwest.social 2 days ago
since you were right, can you review it for us? since we won’t read past the headlines & you want to be right, might as well dig in, no? let us know what you find in your review! thanks!
misk@piefed.social 1 day ago
Why would I make this effort if the autor likely didn’t? If they did all the required research they wouldn’t need an LLM in the first place.