hn.today

Only 40% of AI-cited statistics trace back to a study

trakkr.ai154 points65 comments
Screenshot of Only 40% of AI-cited statistics trace back to a study

A study traced 1,285 statistics given by ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude and Google AI Overviews in response to 200 questions asking for numbers. Researchers followed each citation and its references up to five pages, checking a sample of trails by hand. Only 40% ended at a study that supported the statistic as stated. Another 8% reached a study, but the number or its context had changed; 40% could not be verified because the cited material was inaccessible, missing or did not show the figure, and 11% led to no research at all. These unsupported figures - repeated with confidence despite having no identifiable evidence - are described as “zombie stats.” One example, the claim that 44% of salespeople quit after one follow-up, appeared across all five assistants but traced only to pages repeating the number.

The problem is often not that AI invents a figure, but that it cites a page repeating it rather than the research behind it. Cited pages contained the number 82% of the time, yet only 21% were the original research. Company blogs supplied 54% of citations, and their trails reached a matching study 37% of the time; research-firm and government pages did so about 61-62% of the time. Even when a study was found, retellings often distorted context, such as turning findings from 15 women assessing health websites into a claim about all website first impressions. ChatGPT had the strongest verification rate, 57%, and cited the fewest statistics; the other assistants ranged from 38% to 46%.

Read on trakkr.ai65 comments on Hacker News

Summary generated by AI from the linked article. hn.today is not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator.

More in AI

The daily digest

Today's best Hacker News stories, summarized and screenshotted, one email a day.