I'm not certain.

> And why would they protect a generation and from what and why?

It's very common to delay information to minimize its impact. I suppose for "national security." My intuition is that it is a matter of country pride, and cultural "ownership" over a world wonder.

> And will they not protect the generation who are coming up now, still learning the false truth because the real truth hasn’t been revealed yet?

No, that's how delaying information works. They'll all be dead by the time it comes out anyway.

I don't care to comment on what they may be hiding.

Paying for access to information is not democracy

I'm not going to take your comment seriously due to this wild opinion.

lol

Reality is such that, without integrity, you can prove almost anything you want. As long as your bar for "prove" is at the very bottom.

If you think I'm saying that the world is not infinitely complex, you are missing the point.

If you're always chasing the next technicality then maybe you didn't really know what question you were looking to answer at the onset.

I find the complication comes from poor definitions, poor understanding of those definitions, and pedantic arguments. Less about the facts of reality being complicated and more about our ability to communicate it to each other.

Crazy to say this in a discussion where peer review missed hallucinated citations

Seems like CYA, seems like hand wave. Seems like excuses.

How did these 100 sources even get through the validation process?

> Isn't disqualifying X months of potentially great research due to a misformed, but existing reference harsh?

It will serve as a reminder not to cut any corners.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but this feels like an insanely biased response. They found the one potentially innocuous reason and latched onto that as a way to hand-wave the entire problem away.

Science already had a reproducibility problem, and it now has a hallucination problem. Considering the massive influence the private sector has on the both the work and the institutions themselves, the future of open science is looking bleak.

Okay but right now we're talking about science getting corrupted by money. Which did happen in this instance, so that companies could hide the damage that sugar does to people.

Sugar does damage and scientists were paid to downplay that fact. It is not the first time. This is concerning when we talk about principles and public trust.

I think this is analysis is too surface level. We are seeing Google Gemini pull away in terms of image generation, and their access to billions of organic user images gives them a huge moat. And in terms of training data, Google also has a huge advantage there.

The moat is the training data, capital investment, and simply having a better AI that others cannot recreate.

I don't see how Google doesn't win this thing.

It may kill the browser in a longer window, but before that, it would make them money. Most users do not donate anyway.