Unrelated to this thread and completely OT - I feel like you've just touched a live wire that I haven't seen a lot of conversation yet wrt. LLMs. We've seen pl

Unrelated to this thread and completely OT - I feel like you've just touched a live wire that I haven't seen a lot of conversation yet wrt. LLMs. We've seen plenty about media literacy / verifying news over the years of course, but the time and surface area considerations will change exponentially if people can start generating fake news with an AI (especially audio and video). And I think it's too naive to go straight from there to the Dead Internet Theory, because that's like switching from "believing everything you read on the Internet" to "disbelieving everything you read on the Internet" (which is necessarily wrong with the opposite percentage margin). For this thread, I'm inclined to believe the original comment(er). I'm not going to look it up, look up the username, ask an AI, or really care all that much about the debate, because I'm not directly interested in the outcome. I _am_ interested that, in my own mind, the original comment lost an enormous amount of credibility when the author then reached for ChatGPT to defend the claim. So the only thing I can do without sinking a large amount of time into looking for sources is to leave this thread thinking "I don't know, maybe I'll actually look it up one day, and evaluate it properly when it becomes relevant to me (probably never)". And maybe that's a better outcome than my initial "yeah seems like a legit HN comment" anyway. EDIT: There's a second level issue too where the people using AI to generate "facts" won't themselves know whether they're generating true or false information - presumably(?) not the case in this thread.