This is, imo, such an obviously near term capability that its not worth bringing up as a limitation.
That model doesn't exist.
We have models that can read text and then probabilistically create a summary that's the most likely to match the original.
But none of these models "extract meaning" in a way that can be used for fact checking purposes in the way you describe.
What you're describing is basically a world model, and while there's a few folks claiming these LLMs are showing the glimmers of building world models, it's mostly speculation.
I asked 3.5 to do it for you.
> The paragraph that explains that models cannot be used for fact checking is:
> "But none of these models "extract meaning" in a way that can be used for fact checking purposes in the way you describe."
It’s not hard to imagine a very simple tool to try and find citations for claims. Or perhaps, derive claims from a source with citations.
If i know for sure it is 100% GPT-X generated bs, do you think I'll read it?
A lot of job are at risk. Most of them no because of full automation, but because less people will be required because of productivity increases "thanks to" AI. And many more job will become boring.
The problem is this productivity gain will hurt a lot of people, and there are probably/possibly only a small minority of people that will fully benefit from it