this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2025
250 points (98.4% liked)

Fuck AI

4728 readers
725 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
VerbFlow@lemmy.world
MrMcGasion@lemmy.world
TootSweet@lemmy.world
BigMikeInAustin@lemmy.world
cynar@lemmy.world
drmeanfeel@lemmy.world
pavnilschanda@lemmy.world
CriticalMedicine@lemmy.world
WonderfulWanderer@lemmy.world
Communist@lemmy.ml
eatCasserole@lemmy.world
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
NutWrench@lemmy.world
Soup@lemmy.cafe
iAvicenna@lemmy.world
Tinks@lemmy.world
wizblizz@lemmy.world
corus_kt@lemmy.world
TrickDacy@lemmy.world
andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works
33550336@lemmy.world
Nougat@fedia.io
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
Quill7513@slrpnk.net
glowing_hans@sopuli.xyz
e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de
ThefuzzyFurryComrade@pawb.social
250
AI gets 45% of news wrong — but readers still trust it (pivot-to-ai.com)
submitted 4 weeks ago by technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The BBC and the European Broadcasting Union have produced a large study of how well AI chatbots handle summarising the news. In short: badly.

The researchers asked ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, and Perplexity about current events. 45% of the chatbot answers had at least one major issue. 31% were seriously wrong and 20% had major inaccuracies, from hallucinations or outdated sources. This is across multiple languages and multiple countries.

The AI distortions are “significant and systemic in nature.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mudkip@lemdro.id -5 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

This was a very poorly conducted study. Every single tester was a journalist from the very companies losing traffic to AI. They had a direct stake in making the results look bad. If you dig into the actual report, you see how they get the numbers. Most of the errors are "sourcing issues": the AI assistant doesn't cite a claim, or it (shocking) cites Wikipedia instead of the BBC.

Also, the models are heavily outdated (4o for GPT, Flash for Gemini, which aren't even equivalent in intelligence). They don't list the full model versions from what I can tell.

[–] fistac0rpse@fedia.io -3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

the study was probably conducted by AI

[–] logi@piefed.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

In which case we're supposed to ignore all the problems with it

load more comments (1 replies)