3 ms·

This site looks good, and it's nice that it has data sources, but it would also be nice if it was clear about who built the site.

A_D_E_P_T 1mo ago
Claude built the site, it's obvious from the style. Which is to say that anybody with a $200 subscription and access to Namecheap and Netlify could have built the site in one hour flat. There's no longer any need for an NGO, media nonprofit, or lobbying group to build such things; the effort required has been reduced to near-zero, so anybody can do it.
- Marsymars 1mo ago
  Yeah, I figured that it was LLM-build - which I'm generally okay with if there's someone willing to put their name to it so I can make my own determination about trust level.
- afavour 1mo ago
  > There's no longer any need for an NGO, media nonprofit, or lobbying group to build such things; the effort required has been reduced to near-zero Right but actually creating the thing is only half the story. You need to fact check it (especially with LLMs) promote it, approach journalists to bring it to their attention, etc etc etc. In many ways making a web site has always been the easy part.
  - A_D_E_P_T 1mo ago
    > You need to fact check it (especially with LLMs) That's true... but with every day that passes it's increasingly less true. Today's best high-end LLMs are highly optimized towards fact checking themselves and each other. The winning move is to get a report from Claude and have both Kimi K3 and GPT-5.6-Pro adverserially review it. Then synthesize a fixed version with any one of them. Then adverserially review it again in incognito mode. This sounds like a lot of work, but it takes literally two minutes of effort and it works amazingly well.
    - b112 1mo ago
      Every time I check facts with Claude, it looks at web pages to get stats! With no humans publishing semi reliable data, there is nothing for Claude to quote.
  - gruez 1mo ago
    >promote it, approach journalists to bring it to their attention, etc etc etc. Well it's not very hard these days with social media. All you need to do is post on HN with a compelling enough headline and people will upvote it even if it's AI slop.
  - sagarm 29d ago
    Why fact check it? Facts are kinda of irrelevant in this brand new world anyway.
- swingboy 1mo ago
  And it doesn't look that great. The CSS is all fucked up for me the more you scroll down. No padding in most of the sections. Also, "modelled", lol. I guess that's Claude's British English at work again.
bpt3 1mo ago
Why does it matter? The data sources are cited and are publicly available. It's basically just documenting the utter stupidity of a trade war with a close ally with whom we are tightly coupled economically.
- Marsymars 1mo ago
  > Why does it matter? The data sources are cited and are publicly available. Because I don't want to click through to every data source to verify every figure and need some baseline level of trust about whether they've been correctly used. If there's an error, I want to be able to contact the author somehow.
- ChrisRR 1mo ago
  Because people want to turn absolutely everything into an excuse to argue about AI

A_D_E_P_T 1mo ago

Claude built the site, it's obvious from the style. Which is to say that anybody with a $200 subscription and access to Namecheap and Netlify could have built the site in one hour flat. There's no longer any need for an NGO, media nonprofit, or lobbying group to build such things; the effort required has been reduced to near-zero, so anybody can do it.

Marsymars 1mo ago
Yeah, I figured that it was LLM-build - which I'm generally okay with if there's someone willing to put their name to it so I can make my own determination about trust level.
afavour 1mo ago
> There's no longer any need for an NGO, media nonprofit, or lobbying group to build such things; the effort required has been reduced to near-zero Right but actually creating the thing is only half the story. You need to fact check it (especially with LLMs) promote it, approach journalists to bring it to their attention, etc etc etc. In many ways making a web site has always been the easy part.
- A_D_E_P_T 1mo ago
  > You need to fact check it (especially with LLMs) That's true... but with every day that passes it's increasingly less true. Today's best high-end LLMs are highly optimized towards fact checking themselves and each other. The winning move is to get a report from Claude and have both Kimi K3 and GPT-5.6-Pro adverserially review it. Then synthesize a fixed version with any one of them. Then adverserially review it again in incognito mode. This sounds like a lot of work, but it takes literally two minutes of effort and it works amazingly well.
  - b112 1mo ago
    Every time I check facts with Claude, it looks at web pages to get stats! With no humans publishing semi reliable data, there is nothing for Claude to quote.
- gruez 1mo ago
  >promote it, approach journalists to bring it to their attention, etc etc etc. Well it's not very hard these days with social media. All you need to do is post on HN with a compelling enough headline and people will upvote it even if it's AI slop.
- sagarm 29d ago
  Why fact check it? Facts are kinda of irrelevant in this brand new world anyway.
swingboy 1mo ago
And it doesn't look that great. The CSS is all fucked up for me the more you scroll down. No padding in most of the sections. Also, "modelled", lol. I guess that's Claude's British English at work again.

bpt3 1mo ago

Why does it matter? The data sources are cited and are publicly available. It's basically just documenting the utter stupidity of a trade war with a close ally with whom we are tightly coupled economically.

Marsymars 1mo ago
> Why does it matter? The data sources are cited and are publicly available. Because I don't want to click through to every data source to verify every figure and need some baseline level of trust about whether they've been correctly used. If there's an error, I want to be able to contact the author somehow.
ChrisRR 1mo ago
Because people want to turn absolutely everything into an excuse to argue about AI