The Guardian was only re-reporting that the Washington Post wrote a report (which did reference HN, but put "...after Washington Post analysis" in the strapline), not doing any kind of active journalism that would involve verifying anything or checking sources. "People are saying", basically.
I suppose by not directly linking to original source, they don't have to worry about if the WaPo (or HN) fluffed the analysis: after all, the WaPo did report on it, whether or not it's true, accurate or even correctly sourced is immaterial to the Guardian. It's completely devoid of journalistic talent (and I imagine well in the wheelhouse of generative AI, actually) but it fills slots on the website so you don't look "behind" on the news compared to others and you can get your "article" into SERPs and feeds without delay to jostle for clicks.
I suppose by not directly linking to original source, they don't have to worry about if the WaPo (or HN) fluffed the analysis: after all, the WaPo did report on it, whether or not it's true, accurate or even correctly sourced is immaterial to the Guardian. It's completely devoid of journalistic talent (and I imagine well in the wheelhouse of generative AI, actually) but it fills slots on the website so you don't look "behind" on the news compared to others and you can get your "article" into SERPs and feeds without delay to jostle for clicks.