TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don't Exist

97 点作者 dbuxton8 天前

16 条评论

woodruffw8 天前
Of note: one of the report commission members, McMahon, recently sent a remarkably poorly written letter of complaint to Harvard[1]. I think a reasonable inference to draw in this kind of situation is that the commission&#x27;s members aren&#x27;t qualified to write even the scaffolding of this kind of report, much less consume and interpret the scientific content within it. From that, fabrication (whether intentional or induced by an LLM) is a natural outcome.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.harvard.edu&#x2F;research-funding&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;sites&#x2F;16&#x2F;2025&#x2F;05&#x2F;5.5.25-Harvard-Letter-from-EdSec-FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.harvard.edu&#x2F;research-funding&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;...</a>
评论 #44125930 未加载
评论 #44126185 未加载
dfxm128 天前
Lying &amp; skirting work is the MO for the current US administration. We should just assume anything coming from the white house is fantasy at this point. It would be news when something truthful gets reported.
评论 #44125917 未加载
评论 #44125825 未加载
orwin8 天前
Was that report Llm-written? I recently used genAI to find scholar papers in multiple languages about a specific ww2 subjects, and it delivered, but amongst the very real articles&#x2F;thesis, it invented two papers and an author. As the AI i used was likely trained on Google scholar, this was disappointing.
评论 #44125719 未加载
jfengel8 天前
<i>“Never in American history has the federal government taken a position on public health like this,” Kennedy wrote.</i><p>That much, at least, is accurate.
UncleMeat8 天前
More examples of flag abuse. AI hallucination showing up in <i>critical documents that produce government policy</i> is extremely relevant for a tech forum. But of course [flagged] within an hour.
评论 #44130372 未加载
JohnTHaller8 天前
Link in case the anti-science brigade flags it: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.notus.org&#x2F;health-science&#x2F;make-america-healthy-again-report-citation-errors" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.notus.org&#x2F;health-science&#x2F;make-america-healthy-ag...</a>
sorcerer-mar8 天前
I&#x27;m personally thankful this administration is such a bunch of actual morons. It&#x27;s hugely damaging, for sure, but it could be so much worse. And they are leaving a long trail of negligent missteps that they can (and I hope will) be held accountable for.
评论 #44126457 未加载
评论 #44125979 未加载
voidUpdate8 天前
I wonder how many of the citations were LLM-generated?
评论 #44125847 未加载
postepowanieadm8 天前
It would be easier if they decided to reuse EU food safety standards.
评论 #44128491 未加载
josefritzishere8 天前
Most sane folsk didn&#x27;t read it but RFKs book The Real Anthony Fauci was the same way. It had a huge number of citations but many were dubious, fake or non-existent. The quality of work would not have got past the average CS professor.
incomplete8 天前
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;MnAxG" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;MnAxG</a>
add-sub-mul-div8 天前
If this is their &quot;gold-standard&quot; science I&#x27;d hate to see the bronze level.
评论 #44125841 未加载
empath758 天前
I think it&#x27;s important to point this out, but I don&#x27;t think it matters because the purpose of a report like that isn&#x27;t to find the truth or even to persuade, because they don&#x27;t expect the &quot;audience&quot; for this to ever read it, or to care remotely about the contents, but only to provide the existence of such a report as justification for enacting whatever policy they wanted to enact anyway.<p>The vast majority of people are incapable of understanding a legitimate scientific report, and have zero interest in reading them. They also don&#x27;t have any basis for distinguishing good science from bad, or understand why people should listen to scientists or doctors anyway.<p>---<p>A few relevant quotes -- from the Iraq War:<p>&gt; The aide said that guys like me were &#x27;in what we call the reality-based community,&#x27; which he defined as people who &#x27;believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.&#x27; [...] &#x27;That&#x27;s not the way the world really works anymore,&#x27; he continued. &#x27;We&#x27;re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you&#x27;re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we&#x27;ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that&#x27;s how things will sort out. We&#x27;re history&#x27;s actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do&#x27;.<p>--- From Sartre:<p>“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”<p>----<p>1984:<p>&#x27;How can I help it?&#x27; he blubbered. &#x27;How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.<p>Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.&#x27;<p>---<p>So much of reality as it&#x27;s perceived by people is socially constructed and it&#x27;s possible to wield political power to shape that socially-agreed-upon reality to an extent, and for a length of time that would be surprising to most people in the &quot;reality-based community.&quot;<p>You can show studies and measurements, etc, etc, etc, and they can go &quot;nuh-uh&quot; for literally years and decades and eventually it will matter to someone when they eventually find the stone that &#x27;kicks back&#x27;, but not to the people that were lying about it -- they already got what they wanted.<p>I think now we are in a situation where &quot;being right&quot; isn&#x27;t good enough. You have to both &quot;be right&quot; and wield power, and right now one side of the argument is out of power and doesn&#x27;t seem willing to exercise any power that they might actually have.<p>There comes a time where you have to stop playing word games with them and confront them with whatever political power you can bring to the fight.
评论 #44127680 未加载
ourmandave8 天前
What&#x27;s the actual consequences that the people who produced this report could face?<p>Seriously. Professional censure? Job loss?<p>Or a six-figure board position at a right wing think tank?
评论 #44125724 未加载
bediger40008 天前
Pretty common for people to imitate the structure of scientific or official documents without understanding the purpose of things like abstracts, citations, statistics, etc. This kind of imitation bears a strong resemblance to the original &quot;cargo cults&quot; of the 1950s.<p>I wonder if these fakes and mistakes are cargo cult behavior, or AI slop?
sc68cal8 天前
I am absolutely shocked, shocked that LLM slop is being used to provide post-hoc justification for an ideological project