Comment on An investigation of the forces behind the age-verification bills

• misk@piefed.social ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Looks like I was right. Why repost this? I don’t believe this was ever truly reviewed by a human and Lemmy users won’t do it since most won’t read past the headline.

  source

  • orionsbelt@midwest.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    since you were right, can you review it for us? since we won’t read past the headlines & you want to be right, might as well dig in, no? let us know what you find in your review! thanks!

    source

    • misk@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Why would I make this effort if the autor likely didn’t? If they did all the required research they wouldn’t need an LLM in the first place.

      source
  • BrikoX@lemmy.zip ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Are you disputing any of the listed external sources? Part of it is governments own federal fillings.

    source

    • misk@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Yes, because those sources weren’t read by a human. They could state one thing while the LLM hallucinates another.

      source

      • BrikoX@lemmy.zip ⁨5⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

        Every factual claim in this repository cites a primary source (IRS filing, Senate disclosure, state database, legislative record, or published reporting) that can be independently verified. The tool does not change whether Meta’s LD-2 filing lists H.R. 3149, whether DCA has an EIN, or whether Stefanski admitted tech funding under oath. The records exist or they don’t.

        Unless you can point to incorrect primary source you are just wrong.

        source