Fact check: How many human beings oversee Google chrome's extension Factually and how many humans check the AI fact checks?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, none of the sources contain specific information about the number of human beings overseeing Google Chrome's extension "Factually" or how many humans check the AI fact checks. The search results reveal a concerning lack of transparency regarding human oversight in AI-powered fact-checking tools.

The analyses did identify that Factfully is described as "the world's first AI-driven misinformation checker" ^[1], but provided no details about human supervision. While other fact-checking services were mentioned, such as NewsGuard which employs "almost 40 reporters and dozens of freelancers who examine thousands of websites" ^[2], this information does not pertain to the specific "Factually" extension referenced in the question.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question assumes the existence of a specific Chrome extension called "Factually," but the analyses suggest this may be confused with similar-sounding services. The research uncovered several related but distinct fact-checking tools:

• "Factfully" - an AI-driven misinformation checker ^[1]
• "The Factual" - a mobile app and browser extension that scores news content ^[3]
• Various other fact-checking browser extensions mentioned in library guides ^[2]

A critical missing element is the transparency gap in AI companies used by journalists, as highlighted in one analysis ^[4]. This suggests that the lack of available information about human oversight may be intentional rather than accidental.

The analyses also reveal broader concerns about AI fact-checking reliability, including research on whether "Large Language Models (LLMs) can assess the veracity of claims in news reports generated by themselves or other LLMs" ^[5], which raises questions about the effectiveness of AI-only approaches.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that a Chrome extension specifically named "Factually" exists and operates with some level of human oversight. However, the analyses suggest this may be based on confusion between similarly named services or outdated information.

The question also assumes that human oversight exists in AI fact-checking systems, when the research indicates a "dangerous transparency gap" in AI tools used by journalists ^[4]. This assumption may reflect wishful thinking about accountability measures that may not actually be in place.

The framing of the question suggests an expectation of transparency and human accountability in AI fact-checking systems, but the analyses reveal that such information is systematically unavailable, which could indicate that companies benefit from maintaining opacity about their human oversight practices to avoid scrutiny of their methodologies and potential biases.