Most leading chatbots routinely exaggerate science findings - ahh yes this is completely unique to llms
The following might be rude and unkind, but at this point frankly necessary: LLM apologists should stop projecting.
Never seen a journalist not make broad generalizations on a scientific study so I am not sure where these numbers are coming from.
It will tell you exactly where the numbers are coming from - the comparison is between (a variety of) LLMs and "expert-written summaries from NEJM Journal Watch".
And "LLM apologists" is so polemical it's hard to take seriously. We get it, you don't like GenAI. That's fine, but can we talk about it without getting normative?
"To systematically assess differences between LLM-generated and human-written summaries, we also collected the corresponding expert-written summaries from NEJM Journal Watch (henceforth ‘NEJM JW’)"