When researchers from Westfälische Hochschule read the publications, they became suspicious. For one thing, many passages sounded inconclusive to them. When they clicked on the provided links to cited sources, they didn’t work at all. And on a large scale: according to Der Spiegel magazine, 26 out of 492 footnotes in one of the reports were incorrect.
You must log in or # to comment.
"Enisa speaks of “human errors”
Enisa, which has an annual budget of around 27 million euros, admitted the errors when asked by Der Spiegel magazine, speaking of “deficiencies” for which it takes responsibility. “Human errors” had occurred and the AI had been allowed to make “minor editorial revisions.”"
Human errors… Yeah right, not even doing the bare minimum to do your job like proof reading and fact checking the thing you did is more than a few errors. It’s neglect. How is anyone supposed to trust that if the “trustworthy” source can’t even be bothered to do it’s damn job?
If such sloppy work is done even in the very superficial threat reports, it casts a very bad light on the institution.
Did they just call the AI work sloppy??? 😳👿 - Slopya Nutella, CEO Microslop (Source: htxps://hallucinated-link.slop)