Fake AI Quotes

Artificial intelligence is an increasingly important topic in politics, policy, and law.

Benjamin Mullin at NYT:

The author of a nonfiction book about the effects of artificial intelligence on truth acknowledged on Monday that he had included numerous made-up or misattributed quotes concocted by A.I.

The author, Steven Rosenbaum, whose book “The Future of Truth” was released this month to great fanfare, incorporated more than a half-dozen misattributed or fake quotes in sections of the book reviewed by The New York Times.

The Times asked Mr. Rosenbaum about the quotes on Sunday and Monday. On Monday night, Mr. Rosenbaum acknowledged in a statement that the book had “a handful of improperly attributed or synthetic quotes” and said that he had started his own investigation.

He said that the inclusion of the incorrect quotes was an accident and that he had “no intention of fabricating any viewpoints” while writing the book.

IN AN AI PROMPT, ALWAYS INSIST ON SOURCES AND LINKS. 

Alexandra Samuel at WSJ: 

Whenever you use AI as a research assistant, subject-matter expert, or souped-up search engine, you need to grapple with the risk of hallucination—AI’s tendency to make up its own facts. Your first line of defense against these fabrications? More AI.

I now make a point of getting AI to check every fact it gives me. It still isn’t foolproof, and it is wise to use an actual flesh-and-blood human to fact-check anything you must get right. But using AI for a round of fact-checking can make the human fact-checking process go faster.

To start, before I even read AI-generated research, I get another AI to check its accuracy. I might use the same platform that generated my initial report, but I always start a brand-new session; otherwise the logic that influenced the initial report can influence the fact-checking process.

I set up this new session by harnessing the same sycophantic, people-pleasing tendencies that can make AI hallucinate in the first place. If the first AI created its own facts to please me, my AI fact-checker needs to please me by finding everywhere the first AI went wrong.

To unleash that nitpicking second AI, I start my fact-checking prompts with instructions like “You are a professor of journalism on your university’s ethics board, and it’s your job to investigate the work of a research team that’s been using AI to generate reports.” Or “You’re an auditor who has been hired to check the work of an internal data-analytics team that’s been using AI to compile customer data and sales prospects.” You get the idea. I want the second AI to be every employee’s nightmare.

...

You can also set up your AI tools to accelerate the fact-checking process, for example by turning your favorite nitpicking prompt into an AI assistant (like a custom GPT or a Claude Project), so that you can give any first-draft AI research to that assistant, and get back a list of checked facts and a revised memo.

Or use Claude Code (or Claude Cowork) to spin up a whole team of fact-checkers: Tell the AI that once it has built a list of facts to check, it should assign those facts in small batches to a team of fact-checkers so that each fact gets checked by at least two different AIs, and where needed, a third tiebreaker. When an AI fact-checker hands out this work in simultaneous batches to its many virtual helpers, even a detailed research brief can get verified (and corrected) quite quickly.

Swedish Capitalism

Many.posts have dealt with international perspectives.

Tom Fairless at WSJ:

For decades, Sweden was shorthand for the brand of high-tax, high-spend government that managed people’s lives from cradle to grave through state-run hospitals, schools and care homes.

No longer. With little fanfare, this Nordic country of 11 million has embraced capitalism.

Today, nearly half of primary healthcare clinics are privately owned, many by private-equity firms. One in three public high schools is privately run, up from 20% in 2011. School operators are listed on the stock exchange.

Sweden’s experience has lessons—good and bad—for other rich countries, including the U.S., where New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is looking to emulate parts of the state-centric model such as universal child care and city-run stores.

The capitalist makeover has allowed Sweden to do what few industrialized countries have managed in recent years: shrink the size of the state. That has enabled the government to sharply lower taxes and, economists say, sparked a surge in entrepreneurship and economic growth.

Its total public social spending bill—which includes healthcare, education and all welfare payments—has fallen to 24% of gross domestic product, similar to the U.S. and well below the over 30% for nations like France and Italy.

Ebola

 Many posts have discussed COVID and pandemic preparedness.

Helen Regan at CNN:

An international effort is underway to contain an Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Uganda that has infected hundreds of people and caused dozens of suspected deaths, as the United States looks to relocate a “small number” of its citizens affected.

On Sunday, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Ebola epidemic a “public health emergency of international concern.” The latest outbreak does not yet meet the criteria of a “pandemic emergency,” but WHO warned the high positivity rate and increasing number of cases and deaths across health zones point toward “a potentially much larger outbreak than what is currently being detected and reported.”

More than 100 suspected deaths have been linked to the outbreak in the DRC, the director-general of the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), Jean Kaseya, told CNN on Monday.

Trump withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization. 

A little more than a year ago, Emily Mullin reported at Wired:

A research facility within the US National Institutes of Health that is tasked with studying Ebola and other deadly infectious diseases has been instructed by the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to stop research activities.

According to an email viewed by WIRED, the Integrated Research Facility in Frederick, Maryland, was told to stop all experimental work by April 29 at 5 pm. The facility is part of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and is located at the US Army base Fort Detrick. It conducts research on the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases that are deemed “high consequence”—those that pose significant risks to public health. It has 168 employees, including federal workers and contractors.

Are America's Best Days Behind Us?

Many posts have discussed civic culture.

In his 1992 address to the Republican National Convention, Ronald Reagan said:

Now let’s not dismiss our current troubles, but where they see only problems, I see possibilities — as vast and diverse as the American family itself. Even as we meet, the rest of the world is astounded by the pundits and finger pointers who are so down on us as a nation.

Well I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again — America’s best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead. America remains what Emerson called her 150 years ago, “the country of tomorrow.”

Alas, most Americans no longer see it that way. Blen Wondimu at Pew:

Ahead of the United States’ 250th anniversary, 59% of Americans say the country’s best years are behind us, while 40% say its best years are ahead.

Americans are also much more pessimistic (44%) than optimistic (28%) when asked to think about what things will be like in the U.S. 50 years from now. Another 27% are neither optimistic nor pessimistic, according to a December 2025 Pew Research Center survey.

This research is part of an effort to study public perception on the direction of the U.S. ahead of the 250th anniversary of its founding. It coincides with our analysis about how the U.S. has changed since the country’s bicentennial in 1976.

Views on whether the country’s best years are behind or ahead of us differ somewhat across demographic and political groups.

Race and ethnicity: Majorities of Black (66%), Hispanic (64%) and White adults (57%) say the country’s best years are behind us, as do 53% of Asian adults.

Income: Majorities of adults with lower and middle incomes say the country’s best years are behind us (61% each). Upper-income adults are evenly split: Half say the nation’s best years are behind us and half say its best years are still to come.

Party: Democrats and those who lean toward the Democratic Party are more likely to say the country’s best years are behind us (64%) rather than ahead (34%). Republicans and Republican leaners are more evenly divided: 53% say the country’s best years are behind us, while 46% say they’re ahead.

 

Social Media Influencers in the CA Governor Race

Many posts have discussed social media. 

An unusually large number of social media posts support billionaire CA gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer.  Ben Wieder at LAT:

The posts include direct-to-the-camera appeals, with personal details interwoven into messages of support for Steyer. An influencer goes for a stroll as onscreen text touts Steyer’s policies. Some seek to convey authenticity, if occasionally ham-fistedly; one influencer mispronounces Steyer’s last name.

What they do not include is a disclosure that their creators were paid by the Steyer campaign to produce the videos, according to a complaint filed this week with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission and a Times review of the posts.

The complaint alleges that the Steyer campaign failed to notify the influencers it hired of their obligation to inform their audience when their posts have been sponsored by the campaign.

California passed a law in 2023 requiring that influencers disclose if they have been paid to create promotional content for or against a candidate or ballot measure, one of the few jurisdictions in the country with such a requirement. There is no such requirement at the federal level.

...

Steyer’s campaign appears to have relied on paid influencers more than any candidate for governor, according to the most recent campaign finance filings.

That spending represents only a small fraction of the massive campaign war chest Steyer has seeded with nearly $180 million of his own money. But the complaint highlights the growing degree to which political candidates have come to seek out the authenticity that social media influencers seem to offer.

...

While many of the new Steyer influencers have few followers, Steyer’s campaign disclosed in its most recent campaign finance report that it had paid thousands of dollars to numerous social media influencers with massive audiences, the Sacramento Bee reported.

Several of the videos produced by these popular social media personalities also failed to disclose that they had been paid by the campaign, according to the complaint and The Times’ review of the content.

But even accounts with few followers can still have a big impact if they are producing a steady stream of content supporting Steyer, said veteran California political strategist Mike Madrid.

“What they’re trying to do is trip the algorithm,” he said. “It looks like it has a bigger audience than it really does. It’s taking the concept of astroturfing into the digital age.”

ICE Loses in Court -- A Lot

Many posts have discussed immigration.

 Kyle Cheney at POLITICO:

Ten thousand losses.

That’s the Trump administration’s track record in court as federal judges grapple with the way ICE agents have swept through major U.S. cities and detained thousands of people in support of President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation agenda.

More than 10,000 times, judges have said those detentions, typically carried out with no opportunity for detainees to plead their case, were illegal. That’s roughly 90 percent of all cases — a staggering rejection of a core piece of Trump’s immigration agenda.

Trump’s unprecedented detention policy, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, infuriated lower courts in ways no other modern issue has. It ruptured the relationship between the Justice Department and the judiciary; pitted the administration against itself; and upended innumerable lives — not just of the people swept up by immigration agents, but of their spouses and children, many of whom are U.S. citizens.

POLITICO is tracking the tens of thousands of detention cases that have flooded the system since ICE adopted its detention policy last July. Today we are releasing a full database of those rulings, giving the public an opportunity to see under the hood of our reporting — which has documented the courts’ lopsided results, ICE’s tactics for defying judges’ orders and the rising tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration.

Public Opinion on Religion and Politics

Many posts have discussed the role of religion in American life.

Chip Rotolo and Gregory A. Smith at Pew:

Ahead of what the White House is calling a “large-scale revival” meeting on the National Mall devoted to “rededicating our country as One Nation under God,” a new Pew Research Center survey shows that a growing minority of U.S. adults say religion is gaining influence in American life. And more than half say religion plays a positive role in society.

At the same time, most people want churches and other houses of worship to stay out of day-to-day politics and not endorse candidates.

The new survey also finds growing familiarity with the term “Christian nationalism.” Most Americans surveyed now say they have heard at least a little about it.

Support for ideas that are sometimes associated with Christian nationalism is mostly unchanged in recent years. For example, there has been no growth in the shares of Americans who want the government to stop enforcing separation of church and state or who believe that God favors the United States over all countries.

There has, however, been a small uptick in the share of U.S. adults who say the federal government should declare Christianity the nation’s official religion: 17% now say this, up from 13% in 2024.

On many of these issues, there are sharp partisan divides. For example, Republicans are considerably more likely than Democrats to say religion has a positive influence on American life and to support religion having a prominent role in government and lawmaking.