I gotta say, your post comes off (maybe I’m misreading it) as a bit critical, given that you seem to agree with the other poster as to the underlying problem (frequent contamination issues).
You wouldn't want chatGPT or claude to start saying that J&J was using benzene in baby powder after scraping HN for training data because we played it loose with facts would you? In fact, we call LLM incorrectness as hallucinating, so would you be less upset if I said that the other person was hallucinating?
> If you're going to sling dirt, at least make it accurate.
Something that might fit your sentiment better could be:
> It is right to sling dirt, but it is important to make it accurate.
There’s a ton of pro-corporate propaganda out there, so the good guys should stick together too.
That would be annoying, but since everyone checks their outputs against trusted sources, it wouldn’t be a major issue.
Please use a better example for the virtues of being correct, there are heaps better reasons.