That reminds me of a joke.

A museum guide is talking to a group about the dinosaur fossils on exhibit.
“This one,” he says, “Is 6 million and 2 years old.”
“Wow,” says a patron, “How do you know the age so accurately?”
“Well,” says the guide, “It was 6 million years old when I started here 2 years ago.”

This seems like more of an achievement for the Barbie brand than for the individual director.

Claude 2 would have a much better chance at this because of the longer context window.
Though there are plenty of alternate/theorised/critiqued endings for Game of Thrones online, so current chatbots should have a better shot at doing a good job vs other writers who haven’t finished their series in over a decade.

Why do you say they have no representation? There are a lot of specific bodies operating in the government, advisory and otherwise, with the sole focus of indigenous affairs. And of course, currently, indigenous Australians are over represented in terms of parliamentarian race (more than 4% if parliamentarians are of indigenous descent).

While in general, I’d agree, look at the damage a single false paper on vaccination had. There were a lot of follow up studies showing that the paper is wrong, and yet we still have an antivax movement going on.

Clearly, scientists need to be able to publish without fear of reprisal. But to have no recourse when damage is done by a person acting in bad faith is also a problem.

Though I’d argue we have the same issue with the media, where they need to be able to operate freely, but are able to cause a lot of harm.

Perhaps there could be some set of rules which absolve scientists of legal liability. And hopefully those rules are what would ordinarily be followed anyway, and this be no burden to your average researcher.