742
RFK Jr’s ‘MAHA’ report found to contain citations to nonexistent studies
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
742 points (99.2% liked)
News
30438 readers
3283 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's exactly what I was thinking. A human doesn't accidentally cite multiple made up studies. So these fuckers are writing government policy by saying "Hey ChatCPT, write a scientific paper with citations about how vaccines are bad."
Yeah, humans will cite real studies that don’t say what they claim (either from malice or misunderstanding) or just vaguely say ‘studies say’, not pull an entire citation out of the air.
I’m leaning towards making it illegal to use AI (generative LLM) in government work. All it can do is mislead and introduce errors.
Good luck with that. Administration not being allowed to cheat on their homework is a pipe dream at this point.
this administration
My friend, you are going to hate a recent memo from the US Office of Management and Budget titled “Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence”
Absolutely correct, I do hate it! 🫠
And 70% of people will never check to see if those sources are legit. Kinda like how most people just read the headlines.
More like 99.9%
More like 30%
Most people don't believe this stupid shit.
And yet, here we are.
Yeah, because we don't live in a democracy.
Right, because in a democracy, everybody reads all the footnotes.
In a democracy the majority is in charge of society.
And that's not what we have and it never has been. There was a brief experiment with democracy during Reconstruction before white terror destroyed it, but that's it.
What does anything you’re saying have to do with checking citations?
The fact that the majority of people don't believe in this stupid shit should tell you that, actually, the majority of people are informed.
There's just this persistent and very loud minority of morons who only trust other more charismatic morons who tell them that ivermectin is actually the panacea.
Not checking is one thing, but seeing so many people actually dismissing when someone calls out the factual errors is so infuriating. Like not only you are an ignorant dumbfuck who doesn't bother checking the evidence, but you are stupid too and criticize people who point out the glaring flaws and cry out cancel culture. Or, of course, you are an awful person who doesn't care about the truth as long as you get your way.
ChatCCP, ChatUSA, Chat$Trump, TruthChat... What will they come up with next!
a human might not, but worms will.