Any verification process thorough enough to catch all LLM fabrications would take more work than simply not using the LLM in the first place. If anything verifying what an LLM wrote is substantially more difficult than just reading the material it's "summarising", because you need to fully read and comprehend the material and then also keep in mind what the LLM generated to contrast and at that point what the fuck are you even doing?

I believe this policy can never result in a positive outcome. The policy implicitly suggests that verification means taking shortcuts and letting fabrications slip through in the name of "efficiency", with the follow-up sentence existing solely so that Ars won't take accountability for enabling such a policy but instead place the blame entirely on the reporters it told to take shortcuts.

The LLM can find material that it would be hard or time-consuming for you to do.

You still need to verify it, but "find the right things to read in the first place" is often a time intensive process in itself.

(You might, at that point, argue that "what if LLM fails to find a key article/paper/whatever", which I think is both a reasonable worry, and an unreasonable standard to apply. "What if your google search doesn't return it" is an obvious counterpoint, and I don't think you can make a reasonable argument that you journalists should be forced to cross-compare SERPs from Google/Bing/DuckDuckGo/AltaVista or whatever.)

> Any verification process thorough enough to catch all LLM fabrications would take more work than simply not using the LLM in the first place

Sometimes you have a weak hunch that may take hours to validate. Putting an LLM to doing the preliminary investigation on that can be fruitful. Particularly if, as if often the case, you don't have a weak hunch, but a small basket of them.

It's more using LLMs like a metal detector, rather than digging through the entire beach by yourself.

You still need to check the junk you dig up using the metal detector.

> I believe this policy can never result in a positive outcome.

I get where you're coming from (I'm learning more and more over time that every sentence or line of code I "trust" an AI with, will eventually come back to bite me), but this is too absolutist. Really, no positive result, ever, in any context? We need more nuanced understanding of this technology than "always good" or "always bad."

Disagree. If I’m I’m a reporter and I’m trawling though a mass data dump - say the Epstein files or Wilileaks or statistics on environmental spills or something, using AI to pull out potential patterns in the data, or find specific references can be useful. Obviously you go and then check the particular citations. This will still save a lot of time.