Show HN: Bullshit Detector – agent skills that fact-check videos and articles

I'll look at reliable-sources, and you are right "verifiability, not truth" is basically what I landed on too. Model doesn't get to decide what's true, it just needs to cite something.

Will read reliable-sources page properly.

The reputation of the writer matters a lot. Recent models seem to be pretty good at evaluating author credibility as well.

What's dangerous is treating information from an anonymous author as factual. You gotta check that in other ways.

It should not be seen a credible source though.

It can be, but that's hard to correctly judge on at scale.

Filed both issues from this: https://github.com/SerhiiKorniienko/bullshit-detector/issues... - for syndication https://github.com/SerhiiKorniienko/bullshit-detector/issues... - empirical sources

Empirical sources - would be a first candidate to be implemented in a skill. And you are right about 10 credible sources are actually 2. It will look like 10 independent sources to it, real gap. Skill does prefer primary source over secondary. For example it'll prefer NASA article over blog post who cited NASA article.

I'll work on empirical sources improvement in a next releases.

You may have overlooked this part of the parent's comment which addresses your syndication issue:

> Something along the lines of when you have two accounts that disagree traditionally and they agree on something. That's how you know it's likely to be true.

Outfits that blindly parrot talking points would not be at odds and thus not be good candidates.

It also doesn't help that many news sources will knowingly fudge the truth. There are topics about which they are constant sources of misinformation. Seems like depending on the topic (anything science related) you wouldn't want to use news sources at all. Other topics, you probably only want to use news sources. And arranging all of this weighting of sources is going to be difficult and controversial as well. Doesn't mean it can't be done. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be valuable. But there is a lot to it and most of it isn't so much about technology or math as it is about understanding who should and shouldn't be considered authoritative about what topics.

Sounds challenging to me...

> I've always assumed all politicians lie

Everyone lies at various points to some degree or another, ranging from well-intentioned to malignant, and it takes tremendous sleight of hand to pretend that they're even close to comparable.

> Cool, now do [1] Fauci...

[1] Lied that PPE had no value for the public which he admitted later he did to try to preserve limited supplies for healthcare workers. Lied about the possibility of a lab leak having been the origin of COVID19.

> [2] Bush Jr, [3] Pelosi

[2] Lied about Iraq having WMDs and being connected to al-Qaeda to start a war. Built a torture program.

[3] Used insider information to make money. Maybe also knew about the Bush torture program but didn't do anything to stop it if so.

If you had to rank those three, what order would you place them in?

> have some perspective.

Indeed. Perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements...

> Doesn't make it OK, but

Why the "but"? Are you justifying something? The difference between your framework and mine is that my framework statement ends with a period after "Doesn't make it OK."

all the more necessary to have trusted curators of information

me.

You are right, no excuses. Will have few grammar errors but I'll own them. Cheers!

What if you use OpenAI as a judge and check both responses? Not defending Gemini, just curious if it was that wrong, or Fable - that aggressive.

Fantastic! Dying to hear the feedback. <3