I agree with you and I think the companies have solved it. I think they should be more skeptical of medical articles in general and be more conservative.

> Which is exactly the problem here; it "used to be" that reasonable people would disbelieve random things they find on the internet at least to some degree. "Media literacy". LLMs don't seem to have that capability, and a good number of people are using LLMs in blissful ignorance of that fact.

I completely disagree with this part. LLM's absolutely have the ability to be skeptical but skepticism comes at a cost. LLMs did what used to be a reasonable thing - trust articles published in reputed sources. But maybe it shouldn't do that - it should spend more time and processing power in being skeptical.

▲

eqvinox an hour ago | parent [-]

> LLMs did what used to be a reasonable thing - trust articles published in reputed sources.

That's absolutely not what happened in this case though; neither posts on Medium nor random preprints are reputed sources.

▲

simianwords an hour ago | parent [-]

It was published in Preprints.org, a multidisciplinary preprint server run by MDPI.

I'm not an expert here - is it correct to take anything from here or arxiv as default skeptical?

▲

eqvinox an hour ago | parent [-]

The definition of a preprint is that it isn't peer reviewed. Unless you're an expert in the field, you IMHO shouldn't be looking at preprints. Might be OK if they come recommended by multiple unaffiliated experts (i.e. kinda half reviewed), but definitely not by default.

	▲	simianwords an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I agree, but the public and media outlets don't practice this either: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47716699