I think this is a real challenge for everyone. In many ways potentially we need a restart of a wikipedia like site to document all the valid and good sources. This would also hopefully include things like source bias and whether it's a primary/secondary/tertiary source.
This is pushing the burden of proof on the society. Basically, asking everyone else to pitch in and improve sources so that ai companies can reference these trust worthy sources.
Outsourcing due diligence to a tool (or a single unified source) is the problem, not the solution.
For example, having a single central arbiter of source bias is inescapably the most biased thing you could possibly do. Bias has to be defined within an intellectual paradigm. So you'd have to choose a paradigm to use for that bias evaluation, and de facto declare it to be the one true paradigm for this purpose. But intellectual paradigms are inherently subjective, so doing that is pretty much the most intellectually biased thing you can possibly do.
I've seen a certain sensationalist news source write a story that went like this.
Site A: Bad thing is happening, cite: article Site B
* follow the source *
Site B: Bad thing is happening, cite different article on Site A
* follow the source *
Site A: Bad thing is happening, no citation.
I fear that's the current state of a large news bubble that many people subscribe to. And when these sensationalist stories start circulating there's a natural human tendency to exaggerate.
I don't think AI has any sort of real good defense to this sort of thing. 1 level of citation is already hard enough. Recognizing that it is citing the same source is hard enough.
There was another example from the Kagi news stuff which exemplified this. A whole article written which made 3 citations that were ultimately spawned from the same new briefing published by different outlets.
I've even seen an example of a national political leader who fell for the same sort of sensationalization. One who should have known better. They repeated what was later found to be a lie by a well-known liar but added that "I've seen the photos in a classified debriefing". IDK that it was necessarily even malicious, I think people are just really bad at separating credible from uncredible information and that it ultimately blends together as one thing (certainly doesn't help with ancient politicians).
