There's even a 'perspectives' section that tries to contrast two of the sources, but they're the same article.

> I guess I'm trying to understand your comment. Is there a distinction you're making between LLM summaries or LLM generated text, or are you stating that they aren't being transparent about the summaries being generated by LLMs (as opposed to what? human editors?).

The main point of my original comment was that I wanted to understand what this is, how it works and whether I can trust the information on there, because it wasn't completely clear to me.

I'm not super up to date with AI stuff, but my working knowledge is that I should never trust the output of an LLM and always verify it myself, so therefore I was wondering if this is just LLM output or if there is some human review process, or a mechanism related to the citation functions that makes it output of a different, more trusted category.

I did catch the message on the loading screen as well now, I do still think it could be a little more clear on the individual articles about it being LLM generated text, apart from that I think I understand somewhat better what it is now.

> No, the citations don't guarantee that there weren't any hallucinations, but if you read something that makes you go "huh" – the citations give you a low-friction opportunity to read more.

Either you mean every time you read something interesting (“huh”) you should check it. But in that case, why bother with reading the AI summary in the first place…

Or you mean that any time you read something that sounds wrong, you should check it. But in that case, everything false in the summaries that happens to sound true to you will be confirmed in your mind without you ever checking it.

> as opposed to what? human editors?

...yes? If I go to a website called "_ News" (present company included), I expect to see either news stories aggregated by humans or news stories written and fact checked by humans. That's why newspapers have fact checking departments, but they're being replaced by something with almost none of the utility and its proponents are framing the benefits of the old system as impossible or impractical.