Absolutely! Once false information is out there it can't be retracted even if the article itself is retracted. Bumblebees can't fly and vaccines cause autism are good examples of that. The only difference i can imagine is that LLMs have a much larger reach and may spread shit faster

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 days ago

But the Lancet did not retract the Wakefield paper for 12 years. The Lancet should have been shut down for that.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

This. Here's a comparable case where human journalists did exactly what LLMs are doing now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bohannon#Intentionally_misleading_chocolate_study

The difference is the scale.

[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

wym bumblebees can't fly I've seen them myself

[–] Foofighter@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There was a publication, maybe in german, not sure, which stated that bumblebee can't fly due to their aerodynamics which i think assumed that a bumblebee was a fixed wing aircraft, which it obviously isn't. Or maybe it was a hoax to proof that hoaxes spead and can't be retracted. Not sure. I think it's quite old actually, dating back to the 1920s or 30s.

[–] FluorineBalloon@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I don't have a source but I've always heard it as "according to everything we know about aerodynamics bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly but they do anyway." People use it as motivation, or to justify ignoring proven science.

(Edited to fix swype errors)