Posted by bookofjoe 1/26/2026
The credentials don't matter, the actual content does. And if it's misinformation, then yes, you can be a quadruple doctor, it's still misinformation.
In France, there was a real doctor, epidemiologist, who became famous because he was pushing a cure for Covid. He did some underground, barely legal, medical trials on his own, and proclaimed victory and that the "big bad government doesn't want you to know!". Well, the actual proper study finished, found there is basically no difference, and his solution wasn't adopted. He didn't get deplatformed fully, but he was definitely marginalised and fell in the "disinformation" category. Nonetheless, he continued spouting his version that was proven wrong. And years later, he's still wrong.
Fun fact about him: he's in the top 10 of scientists with the most retracted papers, for inaccuracies.
Even most well-intentioned and best-credentialed individuals have blind spots that only a different pair of eyes can spot through rigorous editing. Rigorous editing only happens in serious organizations, so a good first step would be to ignore every publication that doesn't at the very least have an easy-to-find impressum with a publicly-listed editor-in-chief.
The next step would be to never blame the people listed as writers, but their editors. For example, if a shitty article makes it way to a Nature journal, it's the editor that is responsible for letting it through. Good editorial team is what builds up the reputation of a publication, people below them (that do most of the work) are largely irrelevant.
To go back to this example, you should ignore this guy's shitty study before it's published by a professional journal. Even if it got published in a serious journal, that doesn't guarantee it's The Truth, only that it has passed some level of scrutiny it wouldn't have otherwise.
Like for example website uptime, no editorial team is capable of claiming 100% of the works that passed through their hands is The Truth, so then you need to look at how transparently they're dealing with mistakes (AKA retractions), and so on.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/jun/07/ron-johnso...
This is called disinformation that will get you killed, so yeah, probably not good to have on youtube.
- After saying he was attacked for claiming that natural immunity from infection would be "stronger" than the vaccine, Johnson threw in a new argument. The vaccine "has been proven to have negative efficacy," he said. -
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence instead of just posting bs on rumble.
"AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more"
It's not mistakes, half the time it's completely wrong and total bullshit information. Even comparing it to other AI, if you put the same question into GPT 5.2 or Gemini, you get much more accurate answers.
Every AI company seems to push two points:
1. (Loudly) Our AI can accelerate human learning and understanding and push humanity into a new age of enlightenment.
2. (Fine print) Our AI cannot be relied on for any learning or understanding and it's entirely up to you to figure out if what our AI has confidently told you, and is vehemently arguing is factual, is even remotely correct in any sense whatsoever.
If only we had the technology to display verbatim the text from a webpage in another webpage.
- chat 1 : 2 sources are NIH. the other isnt youtube.
- chat 2 : PNAS, PUBMED, Cochrane, Frontiers, and PUBMED again several more times.
- chat 3 : 4 random web sites ive never heard of, no youtube
- chat 4 : a few random web sites and NIH, no youtube
The article is about AI Overviews, a feature of Google Search (the LLM-generated box that sometimes shows up above the search results).
They're powered by the same pretrained model but, in true Google style, are two otherwise unrelated products built by two completely separate orgs.
Then there's AI Mode (https://www.google.com/ai), NotebookLM and probably some others I'm forgetting right now. :)