Nonsense. In a study seeking to examine whether people are more or less likely to accept bad advice from something that claims to be and behaves as "AI" in the

Nonsense. In a study seeking to examine whether people are more or less likely to accept bad advice from something that claims to be and behaves as "AI" in the common understanding, whether the bad advice comes from an LLM or not is irrelevant as long as no difference is evident to the subjects of the study. The point is the behavior of the humans in the study, not that of the tools used to perform the study. Indeed, using a live LLM would much more likely confound the result, because its responses in themselves are not deterministic. Even if you could precisely control whether or not the advice delivered is accurate, which you can't, you still have to account for differences in behavior driven by specific AI responses or themes therein, which again is not what this study in human behavior seeks to examine. (Or the study is badly designed, which this may be; I have not read it. But the quality of the study design has no import for the validity of this criticism, which if implemented would only weaken that design by insisting on an uncontrolled and uncontrollable variable.)