> What wasn't acknowledged was the utility of having imperfect information. That's an interesting take, and one I haven't heard before. My main squeamishness w

> What wasn't acknowledged was the utility of having imperfect information. That's an interesting take, and one I haven't heard before. My main squeamishness with bad journalism, and even worse, with chat gpt, is not truth-content, but rather sourcing. If you know the source, you can account for its biases, or, your reader can do so. As such, well-sourced quotes of complete nonsense tend towards adding to the sum total of truth in the world, because it was true that somebody said it, and their perspective is part of what's interesting in whatever event you're discussing. If you scrub the data of its sources (like journalists do routinely, and chatgpt does by necessity) important information is lost.