Even that use of "AI" is sus: when I have Claude write some code, it has goofy problems a lot of the time. Bit-fields off by 2, missing field structs, public enums and variables that aren't and shouldn't be used publicly. Why is use of "AI" in other contexts not as error prone? I stand by my answer. I'm not even going to offload my mistake-making to a program that gives wrong information every so often.
When researching candidates, is it more or less accurate than the media and ads? Is a mistake or two in a larger blurb about a candidate going to move the needle? Do your human written resources have more or less errors?
Many people are using Ai for deep research and finding it one of the most useful use-cases. You check your code, why do you assume all people don't look at the citations that come back with their report?
I agree eyes-free usage in coding or otherwise is a bad trend. But humans are going to human and I'm not sure the Ai returning information is actually worse than the major media outlets. The opposite really
