Journals unfortunately aren't stepping up to meet the challenge. I was writing articles about this problem several years ago and things haven't noticeably improved. This thread is full of people pointing out the obvious solution - take claim audit seriously and start by paying people to do professional peer reviews. Their actual solutions tend to look like spam filters for paper submission queues. It's enough to be able to say they're doing something, but not enough to actually make a big difference especially post ChatGPT.
I'm not so pessimistic, I think people learn to discriminate between sources. A lot of people right now are learning to generalize to "experts aren't" but it's a rather more nuanced understanding than the media like to make out when you dig in, for instance people understand that "expert" in this context usually means public sector funded academic or civil servant, and not e.g. a roughneck on an oil rig, some UI programmer at Apple, the guy who fixed their car last weekend. They learn that the first form of expertise is the type where making false claims can be beneficial for the people making them, whereas if you lie a lot about oil on an oil rig eventually something will explode.
I think we'll eventually get to a place where incentives are better aligned, for instance where data collection and aggregation is fully divorced from the people analyzing it. A lot of the distortion in science comes from the fact that academics need to collect data but aren't rewarded much for doing it, so once a dataset is collected it gets kept secret and that allows for a lot of dishonest game playing. It also means people are strongly incentivized to see things in the data that aren't really there. If data collection and analysis was fully divorced, those issues would go away (you'd get other problems of course but would they be worse?).
What were facing is an explosion of Brandolini's law on a scale people are not prepared to deal with and when all financial incentives promote this direction and financial incentives rule the world, I'm not sure how we get around the issue in environments that support free speech.
I'm not proposing we curtail free speech but we have serious issues to deal with as a society in terms of the believability and sheer volume of false information. To some degree this has always been an issue but my concern is that there's a critical tipping point in a free speech environment where there's so much BS out there people completely stop believing any information not matter how reputable or valid it is.