For the last part I agree with you, the LLMs tend to say what you like to hear. The echo chamber problem also exists, pushing them to say pros and cons is not perfect, but helps to make an opinion (and also "unaligned" models).

Facts are very skewed by the environment: in the case you push too much in one direction that is too controversial or because the politicians disagree too much with you; there can be plenty of negative consequences:

- your website gets blocked, or you get publicly under pressure, or you lose donations, you lose grants, your payment providers blocks you, you lose audience, you can get a fine, you can go to jail, etc.

Many different options.

There is asymmetry here:

    We disagree, you have one opinion, what happens if both of us fight for 10 months, 24/7 debating "what is the truth ?" on that topic.

    - You have that energy and time (because it's your own page, or your mission where you are paid by your company, or because this topic is personally important to you, etc)

    - I don't have time or that topic is not *that* important for me.

    - Consequence: Your truth is going to win.

Sources are naturally going to be curated to support your view. At the end, the path of least resistance is to go with the flow.

The tricky part: there are also truths that cannot be sourced properly, but are still facts (ex: famous SV men still offering founders today investment against sex). Add on top of that, legal concerns, and it becomes a very difficult environment to navigate. Even further, it's always doable to find or fabricate facts, and the truth wins based on the amount of energy, power and money that the person has.

▲ dc396 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> It's always doable to find or fabricate facts, and the truth wins based on the amount of energy, power and money that the person has.

You appear to be using unusual definitions of "fact" and "truth", more akin to "assertions" and "vibe". I'll stick with the traditional definitions.

▲ rvnx 5 hours ago | parent [-]

An example of (either fabricated, or just very convenient) facts:

[1] https://patriotpolling.com/our-polls/f/greenland-supports-jo...

    According to an American poll that surveyed 416 people residing across Greenland on their support for joining the United States.
    57.3% wants to join the US.

[2] https://www.politico.eu/article/greenland-poll-mute-egede-do...

    According to a Danish poll (conducted through web interviews) among 497 selected citizens in Greenland.
    85% do not want to join the US.

What is the actual truth ? Who knows.

▲

dc396 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're confusing data with facts.

A "fabricated fact" (or "alternative fact" if you prefer) is an oxymoron. Actual truth, as opposed to a vibe or what people are basing their decisions on these days, is orthogonal to "the amount of energy, power and money that the person has." Deriving or identifying actual facts and truth is hard (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) and always subject to change based on new data, so lots of people don't do it -- it's much easier to just make shit up and confirms biases.

▲

whynotmaybe 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You know that both can be true right ?

If I ask 10 people what they think of something and 60% says "no" and if I ask another 10 people and 90% says "yes" there's no relation between the 60% and the 90%, like at all.

Or as Homer said it "Anybody can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 40% of people know that."

	▲	rvnx 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I like what you said about the quote :) My favorite is: "Numbers are fragile creatures, and if you can torture them enough, you can make them say whatever you want"