When pressed for sources on factual data, ChatGPT defaults to citing "general knowledge," providing misleading information with unearned confidence. This lack of verifiable sourcing makes it a liability for detail-oriented professions like journalism, requiring more time for correction than it saves in research.

Related Insights

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.

An AI that confidently provides wrong answers erodes user trust more than one that admits uncertainty. Designing for "humility" by showing confidence indicators, citing sources, or even refusing to answer is a superior strategy for building long-term user confidence and managing hallucinations.

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.

Despite being a language model, ChatGPT's most valuable application in a data journalism experiment was not reporting or summarizing but its ability to generate and debug Python code for a map. This technical capability proved more efficient and reliable than its core content-related functions.

Journalist Casey Newton uses AI tools not to write his columns, but to fact-check them after they're written. He finds that feeding his completed text into an LLM is a surprisingly effective way to catch factual errors, a significant improvement in model capability over the past year.

Unlike coding, where context is centralized (IDE, repo) and output is testable, general knowledge work is scattered across apps. AI struggles to synthesize this fragmented context, and it's hard to objectively verify the quality of its output (e.g., a strategy memo), limiting agent effectiveness.

The risk of unverified information from generative AI is compelling news organizations to establish formal ethics policies. These new rules often forbid publishing AI-created content unless the story is about AI itself, mandate disclosure of its use, and reinforce rigorous human oversight and fact-checking.

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.