Yes, but honestly what's the best source when reporting about a person? Their personal website no?

I think it's a hard problem and I feel there are a lot of trade-offs here.

It's not as simple as saying chatgpt is stupid or the author shouldn't be surprised.

The problem isn’t that it pulled the data from his personal site, it’s that it simply accepted his information which was completely false. It’s not a hard problem to solve at this time. “Oh, there’s exactly zero corroborating sources on this. I’ll ignore it.”

	▲	moebrowne 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Verifying that something is 'true' requires more than corroborating sources. Making a second blog post on another domain is trivial, then a third and a forth.

▲

fatherwavelet 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To me it is like steering a car into the ditch and then posting how the car went into a ditch.

You don't have to drive that much to figure out that what is impressive is keeping the car on the road and then traveling further or faster than what you could do by walking. For that though you actually have to have a destination in mind and not just spin the wheels. Post pointless metrics on how fast the wheels spin for your blog no one reads in the vague hope of some hyper Warhol 15 milliseconds of "fame".

The models for me are just making the output of the average person an insufferable bore.