I think it’s pretty well established that people upvote primarily what they like and agree with. I would prefer it to be different but most people like it that way.

Amount of upvotes is a direct indication of people who fell for it, same with original Reddit thread - there’s plenty to chose from. I’ve also seen actual journalists from liberal media that shared this as well.

Liberals fall for different kinds of deepfakes.

Here’s an example of a deepfake research/investigation that’s being circulated on Fediverse, Reddit etc: https://lemmy.zip/post/60720377

Calling it out for being AI generated was met with a mixed response too. Unfortunately people tend to fall for things that confirm their bias, regardless of political leaning.

LLM output isn’t „correct unless proven wrong”, nothing ever is. LLMs aren’t a reliable technology for research and and all it has done so far is that it has lowered the bar on presenting plausible sounding text.

I’m not after plausible sounding text, I’m after truth, facts and human insights.

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

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.

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.

This was written by an LLM, wasn’t it?

How do you get banks to participate? Those things can only happen if regulators make everyone do it.