If you're so curious, why not have a look? The files are pretty obviously available, any online magnet link viewer will show them to you https://webtor.io/db503db679f508aa31a9e07913b2aa8cf7aa6dff?p...
It's their report, their claims, their argument. The burden to make the case and be transparent is theirs, not mine. It's dishonest to present AI summaries as facts.
There should be at least a sample of the source text so we can see how well the descriptions match the sources.
Also, where is the prompt, the model? The methods used to present the content.
It's funny how much critique of "AI slop" is on HN, and here's a case where even mild hallucination is very misleading, yet the bar is incredibly low.
“I refuse to and I’m still going to complain.”
The documents have been provided.
If you don’t believe it go and download the documents and grep through them. You act like 300gb is large. It’s not. The next FPS will probably be that big.
- source that approximately nobody will follow up with
This has been a common journalist tactic to report the opposite of the truth.
Am I the only one who bothered to download the torrent and check?
So much intellectual laziness, if I may be blunt. All of you who replied to me. The link was there. I didn't have time last night. But I do now. And the torrent appears to be genuine.
Journalists have reached the same conclusion, and the AfD spokesperson seems to have admitted at least some of them are genuine.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-news-hackers-release-afd-party...
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/germanys-far-right-...
Look dude, maybe this is your project , so you're defensive.
I saw the tag line, visited and thought "ooh some spicy emails that'll be interesting. ".
Then i found a bunch of AI slop, with no grounding.
That's all it is.
I would read a non AI generated article from a (hopefully unbiased) legitimate source. Hopefully providing some nuance that the world including HN lacks lately.