A few months ago in a comment here on HN I speculated about the reason an old law might have been written the way it was, instead of more generally. If it had been written without the seemingly arbitrary restrictions it included there would have been no need for the new law that the thread was about.

A couple hours later I decided to ask an LLM if it could tell me. It quickly answered, giving the same reason that I had guessed in my HN comment.

I then clicked the two links it cited as sources. One was completely irrelevant. The other was a link to my HN comment.