> Ahhhhh, but you say you don't care about it being real, you say you only care about the prompt

I definitely did not say I don't care about it being real. For the submission that we're commenting on there actually was no incorrect factual information, so it seems you're now using outside examples to support your point.

> So, I guess you have no issue with tornews.org. Maybe you should subscribe. All these articles sound quite exciting and there's a lot of them...

You're suggesting I would apply the same level of scrutiny to a personal blog post about coffee trends as to a news site talking about criminal activity?

Well, you're kind of right. I don't blindly believe any information. I research to confirm or learn more about anything that's worth remembering (e.g. the Safavid/Qajar coffee/tea). That's why in terms of learning new things it makes no difference to me whether the post is LLM-generated, LLM-embellished, LLM-edited, or raw human output. I'm not going to use it as a source and it's not going to change my mind about anything unless I can find support for the important claims.

The main problem with the darknet articles you linked to is not the fact that they're LLM slop but that they are masquerading as news outlets while not citing any sources.

That level of journalistic rigor is not something that I expect (although I would appreciate it) from a personal blog post about coffee trends.