While Large Language Models (LLMs) can amplify online misinformation, they also show promise in tackling misinformation. In this paper, we empirically study the capabilities of three LLMs -- ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude -- in countering political misinformation. We implement a two-step, chain-of-thought prompting approach, where models first identify credible sources for a given claim and then generate persuasive responses. Our findings suggest that models struggle to ground their responses in real news sources, and tend to prefer citing left-leaning sources. We also observe varying degrees of response diversity among models. Our findings highlight concerns about using LLMs for fact-checking through only prompt-engineering, emphasizing the need for more robust guardrails. Our results have implications for both researchers and non-technical users.

Climate change has increased the intensity, frequency, and duration of extreme weather events and natural disasters across the world. While the increased data on natural disasters improves the scope of machine learning (ML) in this field, progress is relatively slow. One bottleneck is the lack of benchmark datasets that would allow ML researchers to quantify their progress against a standard metric. The objective of this short paper is to explore the state of benchmark datasets for ML tasks related to natural disasters, categorizing them according to the disaster management cycle. We compile a list of existing benchmark datasets introduced in the past five years. We propose a web platform - NADBenchmarks - where researchers can search for benchmark datasets for natural disasters, and we develop a preliminary version of such a platform using our compiled list. This paper is intended to aid researchers in finding benchmark datasets to train their ML models on, and provide general directions for topics where they can contribute new benchmark datasets.