But the situation we're in is that someone who does misinformation is claiming an LLM believed misinformation. Step one would be getting an someone independent, ideally with some journalistic integrity, to verify Benn's claims.
Generally speaking if your aunt sally claims she ate strawberry cake for her birthday, the LLM or Google search has no way of verifying that. If Aunt Sally uploads a faked picture of her eating strawberry cake, the LLM is not going to go to her house and try to find out the truth.
So if Aunt Sally is lying about eating strawberry cake, it's not clear what search is supposed to return when you ask whether she ate strawberry cake.
>Step one would be getting an someone independent, ideally with some journalistic integrity
That's already part of the problem. Who defines what integrity is? How do you measure it? And even if you come up with something, how do you convince everyone to agree on it? One person's most trusted source will always be just another bought spindoctor to the next. I don't think this problem is salvageable anymore. I think we need to consider the possibility that the internet will die as a source for any objective information.
I doubt it. But you can't simultaneously cultivate an image as a propagandist who lies to and about AI and a truth teller who tells the truth about AI.
You either try hard to tell the objective truth or you bend the truth routinely to try to make a "larger" point. The more you do the latter the less credit people will give your word.
