People ask that same question about all sorts of news organizations, not just the AI-generated versions of that content.
We don't have someone who reaches those determinations. If you take it as a given that the majority of the public is interested in being able to access accurate news, whether that's from the original source or a summary of what is available by gathering up sources from a number of places and putting that back, if you end up with an AI system that consistently provides information that is found to be inaccurate or biased, I suspect that the majority of users are going to say that it is not an AI service they want to rely upon. We've seen it play out with Twitter's AI service, Grok. There were a number of instances when some of the results it was generating caused a lot of concern. People then abandoned that service because it was not reliable.
The market has some disciplining effect here. If the kinds of outputs that are being generated are the sorts of outputs people can't rely upon, if the summaries themselves don't reflect what is happening in their own community or their own interests and the like, they simply aren't going to use those services, it seems to me.
The market plays a bit of a role, but we don't have—nor should we have—a government agency or otherwise going on and checking this out to say, “Is this accurate or not?” That's not how the system functions.