Who checks the fact-checkers? More LLMs (semi-seriously). I think there is a pretty clear trend of not leveraging "trained"/"built-in" knowledge if you value a

Who checks the fact-checkers? More LLMs (semi-seriously). I think there is a pretty clear trend of not leveraging "trained"/"built-in" knowledge if you value accuracy, but rather use LLMs as a way to extract meaning and compare to a known-good reference. One way would be to use LLMs to flag suspicious talking points, compile a list of propaganda topics and their rebuttal, and give that in the context window of LLMs that formulate a response. For more general fact-checking, I guess one could ask LLMs to extract the various points, run a quick web check on them (maybe we need a "facts" database?), and examine the results. This wouldn't protect against logical fallacies though, I'm not sure that can be avoided short of injecting a proof assistant somehow (or providing rebuttals to known talking points, as suggested above).