So, we are citing ChatGPT for news now?
And not even trying to hide the fact?
Jesus. We’re cooked.
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
-42 points (15.0% liked)
politics
26409 readers
2347 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I’m with you on that one, I mean it really wouldn’t be that hard to just.. do the math on this, especially if it’s your job to write articles like this.
Maybe the phrase “we asked chatGPT” is the new hotness in clickbait but fuck me if it isn’t depressing.
We asked chatGPT for the top ten fashion trends of 2025. You won’t believe number 6.
🙃
Well?? Tell me 6 7
But then OP wouldn’t be able to use the buzzword / buzzphrase
We're well passed cooked from what I've seen..
ChatGPT was cited as source. That’s not terrible. To not double-check those numbers is not great, but we aren’t doomed because it was cited. We would be doomed if this became the norm.
If I can’t cite Wikipedia as a source in a school paper, journalists shouldn’t be allowed to cite ChatGPT for an article.
Research is part of their job.
Big brain move, asking an LLM to do economics math. They’re large LANGUAGE models, not large MATHEMATICAL models. They forgo rigorous methodologies in favor of stochastically predicting correlations based on intractably large datasets, which can lead to such impressive mathematical feats as failing to count to three. Great job, Yahoo.
Seriously. My sister was the one who believed ChatGPT can think and do calculus or math. I gave a rather simple but definitely unique math task. At first I put it into google search calculator and showed the result, which was correct. Then I gave the same exact thing to ChatGPT and the result was completely different and false.
My favorite example was when they gave all the top LLMs a task to figure out how many circles in an image were touching. Every single one failed miserably at this task that would have been trivial for a 3 year old.
Unless the answer was five. Because of the Olympics logo.
Edit: I posted this because I would imagine LLMs to have readily accessible figures that random reporters may not.
LLMs have the same information that a reporter can find online or other public records, but will more often than not conflate separate things into new, inaccurate info or straight up make shit up that sounds accurate to someone who doesn't know anything about the subject.
I don't understand why I still have to see posts from this user who I've blocked over and over for months.