I don't really see what you're getting at, it seems unrelated to the issue of referencing URLs in compliance documentation.

They're suggesting that the original comment is LLM generated, and after looking at the account's comment history I strongly suspect they're correct

	▲	staticassertion 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Oh, I sort of wondered if that was the case but I was really unsure based on the wording. Yeah, I have no idea.

stavros an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I think they meant that, now that LLMs are invented, people have suddenly started to lie on the Internet.

Every comment section here can be summed up as "LLM bad" these days.

	▲	yorwba an hour ago \| parent [-]
		No, now that LLMs are invented, a lot more people lying on the Internet have started to do so convincingly, so they also do it more often. Previously, when somebody was using all the right lingo to signal expert status, they might've been a lying expert or an honest expert, but they probably weren't some lying rando, because then they wouldn't even have thought of using those words in that context. But now LLMs can paper over that deficit, so all the lying randos who previously couldn't pretend to be an expert are now doing so somewhat successfully, and there are a lot of lying randos. It's not "LLM bad" — it's "LLM good, some people bad, bad people use LLM to get better at bad things."