CIRCLE WITH A DOT

I don't… that's why I said I was curious what it was. I was asking.
Anyway… if your tool can't be used for the task the article is about, which is tech journalism. why did you come in to the article's replies to defend AI research? All I'm seeing is you reacting to criticism of an example where LLM for research didn't work by defending your own use, in an application and implementation that both aren't relevant to the event at hand.

I'm curious how your example actually works under the hood.

I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe your personal experience with a research summarization tool was not relevant to this story of a tech journalist, who needs to source current events from myriad sources and not just a limited database of pre-curated published research? I speculate your CAQDAS tool would not have been useful for a current events journalist who may need to quote things like statements from leadership, self-published cybersecurity reports, transcriptions of tech presentations etc… where there's a lot more critical thinking involved in selecting who to source from.

Regardless, I'd love to see how your CAQDAS tool fares against peer-reviewed fact-checking tests. I am very skeptical the failure rate is under 1% just from your testimony.

Even if the success were 95%, as a journalist, consistently using a stochastic method to give sources guarantees you eventually fuck up and let a fabricated quote into print.

Ars Technica's credibility is forever marred by this event, however fair you think that is. And it's this dude's fault!

Two-fold failure here. This guy should have taken a sick day (and possibly was incentivized not to do so? We don't know), and under no circumstances is "using AI to mine sources" an error you get to bounce back from as a journalist. Unforgivable - you understood the risks!