Some of the citations that underpin the science in the White House’s sweeping “MAHA Report” appear to have been generated using artificial intelligence, resulting in numerous garbled scientific references and invented studies, AI experts said Thursday.
Of the 522 footnotes to scientific research in an initial version of the report sent to The Washington Post, at least 37 appear multiple times, according to a review of the report by The Post. Other citations include the wrong author, and several studies cited by the extensive health report do not exist at all, a fact first reported by the online news outlet NOTUS on Thursday morning.
Purely as an aside, this bit made me laugh.
AI technology can be used legitimately to quickly survey the research in a field. But Oren Etzioni, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington who studies AI, said he was shocked by the sloppiness in the MAHA Report.
“Frankly, that’s shoddy work,” he said. “We deserve better.”
No, we don’t. We elected them, because some voters wanted to believe the promises, some didn’t realize the consequences, and the Democrats put forth a brand that smacked of autocracy.
Back to the point:
The entire episode is a “cautionary tale” for the potential use of AI in government, said Anand Parekh, chief medical adviser at the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
No, I suspect this is some real damage to generative AI as a usable product. We’ve already had many reports of hallucinations and allied phenomenon, and of companies reverting efforts to use generative AI once its shortcomings became apparent. Now the fools in the RFK, Jr fold have really blundered in their efforts to continue the graft of their kind.
If the generative AI companies don’t cover this up quickly, their dreams of unbelievable wealth may evaporate like a sugared drink on a hot sidewalk, a mildly repulsive and sticky mess.
Or, as someone more knowledgeable notes,
The garbled scientific citations betray subpar science and undermine the credibility of the report, said Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.
“This is not an evidence-based report, and for all practical purposes, it should be junked at this point,” he said. “It cannot be used for any policymaking. It cannot even be used for any serious discussion, because you can’t believe what’s in it.”