> Even if readers didn’t make it all the way to the ends of the papers, they would have encountered red flags early on, such as statements that “this entire paper is made up” and “Fifty made-up individuals aged between 20 and 50 years were recruited for the exposure group”.

> What is the recommendation here? Should the agent take everything published in a skeptical way?

Not everything. Maybe some things that are explicitly called made-up.

I agree, but again - LLMs are trained to be more forgiving of things published in places that had a good reputation. There are two options

1. even if an article is published in a place with good reputation, the LLM will be equally skeptical and use test time compute to process it further

2. accept the tradeoff where LLM will by default accept things published in high reputation sources as true so that it doesn't waste processing power but might miss edge cases like this one

Which one would you prefer?