A significant portion (30-50%) of statistics, news, and niche details from ChatGPT are inferred and not factually accurate. Users must be aware that even official-sounding stats can be completely fabricated, risking credibility in professional work like presentations.

Related Insights

Salesforce's AI Chief warns of "jagged intelligence," where LLMs can perform brilliant, complex tasks but fail at simple common-sense ones. This inconsistency is a significant business risk, as a failure in a basic but crucial task (e.g., loan calculation) can have severe consequences.

To maintain quality, 6AM City's AI newsletters don't generate content from scratch. Instead, they use "extractive generative" AI to summarize information from existing, verified sources. This minimizes the risk of AI "hallucinations" and factual errors, which are common when AI is asked to expand upon a topic or create net-new content.

When querying ChatGPT for trends or tactics, failing to specify a time period (e.g., 'in the last 60 days') will result in outdated information. The model defaults to data that is, on average, at least a year old, especially for fast-moving fields like marketing.

Don't trust academic benchmarks. Labs often "hill climb" or game them for marketing purposes, which doesn't translate to real-world capability. Furthermore, many of these benchmarks contain incorrect answers and messy data, making them an unreliable measure of true AI advancement.

A critical learning at LinkedIn was that pointing an AI at an entire company drive for context results in poor performance and hallucinations. The team had to manually curate "golden examples" and specific knowledge bases to train agents effectively, as the AI couldn't discern quality on its own.

AI models tend to be overly optimistic. To get a balanced market analysis, explicitly instruct AI research tools like Perplexity to act as a "devil's advocate." This helps uncover risks, challenge assumptions, and makes it easier for product managers to say "no" to weak ideas quickly.

Unlike consumer chatbots, AlphaSense's AI is designed for verification in high-stakes environments. The UI makes it easy to see the source documents for every claim in a generated summary. This focus on traceable citations is crucial for building the user confidence required for multi-billion dollar decisions.

Advanced AI tools like "deep research" models can produce vast amounts of information, like 30-page reports, in minutes. This creates a new productivity paradox: the AI's output capacity far exceeds a human's finite ability to verify sources, apply critical thought, and transform the raw output into authentic, usable insights.

To combat AI hallucinations and fabricated statistics, users must explicitly instruct the model in their prompt. The key is to request 'verified answers that are 100% not inferred and provide exact source,' as generative AI models infer information by default.

AI can provide outdated information. Instead of stating its output as fact ("You are an ESOP"), frame it as a question ("My research suggested you were an ESOP, is that still the case?"). This validates information and turns a potential error into a natural, informed conversation starter.

ChatGPT Inaccurately Infers Up to 50% of Niche Stats and Details | RiffOn