Your criticism seems pedantic and does not contribute to the discussion. Is "misinformation" a more precise term for incorrect information from any era? Sure.

Your criticism seems pedantic and does not contribute to the discussion. Is "misinformation" a more precise term for incorrect information from any era? Sure. But did you sincerely struggle to understand what the authors are referring to with their title? Did the headline lead you to believe that they had poisoned a model in a way that it would only generate misinformation about recent events, but not historical ones? Perhaps. Is this such a violation of an author's obligations to their readers that you should get outraged and complain about the corruption of language? You apparently do, but I do not. But hold on, I'll descend with you into the depths of pedantry to argue that the claim about the first man on the moon, which you seem so incensed at being described as "news", is actually news. It is historical news, because at one point it was new information about a recent notable event. Does that make it any less news? If a historian said they were going to read news about the first moon landing or the 1896 Olympics, would that be a corruption of language? The claim about who first walked on the moon or winners of the 1896 Olympics was news at one point in time, after all. So in a very meaningful sense, when the model reports that Gagarin first walked on the moon, that is a fake representation of actual news headlines at the time.