This is really the perfect use of generative AI: to create a report whose purpose is solely to exist as A Report, which no one is supposed to read because no one involved in its creation even pretends to have the slightest genuine interest in the actual facts at issue.
Reposted from
Sarah Todd
Seven of the sources cited in MAHA commission's report do not exist:
“The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with," says one researcher.
www.notus.org/health-scien...
“The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with," says one researcher.
www.notus.org/health-scien...
Comments
Being governed by chatGPT is horrifying.
From a business perspective, GenAI should only be used when there's a tolerance for error (e.g. a report no one is expected to read).
If one report is true and the other even clearly false, what layman can tell the difference?