It is inaccurate though. Those employees never used the system, and incorrectly cited what it is used for. I did some legwork before I drew my conclusions. ED

It is inaccurate though. Those employees never used the system, and incorrectly cited what it is used for. I did some legwork before I drew my conclusions. EDIT: citing some resources here for those that are curious. Original article cited by the paper: https://www.engadget.com/ai/fda-employees-say-the-agencys-elsa-generative-ai-hallucinates-entire-studies-203547157.html https://www.engadget.com/ai/fda-employees-say-the-agencys-el... Actual CNN article the Engadget article is based on: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/politics/fda-ai-elsa-drug-regulation-makary https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/politics/fda-ai-elsa-drug-reg... Neither present a serious take about what's going on with Elsa at the FDA. They both glom onto a handful of anonymous sources without looking deeper. A far more serious take about Elsa's use at the FDA in a journal that prides itself on scientific rigor and ethical behavior: https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/elsa-llm-at-the-fda-a-responsible-first-step-toward-efficient-government/ https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/elsa-llm-at-the-fda-a-...