You can't fact-check everything...
... there's just too much. It's the proverbial drinking from a fire hose... even if you're just a dog on the internet. (Slightly obscure reference.)
The past few posts have been on a related problem--how to use AI to help find relevant information and check on the accuracy of things.
But if everything is suspect and you're drowning in content, how do you know when to spend the time and effort on checking?
You might remember this example from a while ago. Here's the photo I took:
When I asked Google Lens what this tree was couple of months ago (July, 2026), here's the answer I got...
I know for certain that this a California Buckeye (Aesculus californica)--you can get all of the details from the authoritative source, CalFlora.
As I said back then, Google search-by-image (aka Google Lens) gets it wrong. I can't really blame it because it looks a lot like a California Sycamore (Plantanus racemosa) in its fall foliage. But it's only early July, so that can't be right.
Even stranger, when I ask Google Lens today (Oct 18, 2026), the answer is different yet again... now it says it's a
"... a small deciduous tree, which appears to resemble a distressed or stressed Japanese maple (Acer palmatum) or a similar small ornamental tree with thinning, browning foliage."
That's also very wrong.
Regular Reader Ramón pointed out that "...you know a lot about trees, so you know that it's wrong... but I don't live in California--how would I know that the answer is wrong?"
Great question.
To generalize a bit: When should you trust ANY AI-generated result?
The teacher in me wants to say "never--just check it all!" But that's not realistic. Like the dog in the top image, there's just too much stuff flowing across your screen to check it all.
Here are four heuristics I've found to help you decide when to turn off the fire hose and pull out the magnifying glass:
1. The "Load-Bearing Fact" Test
Ask yourself: If this fact is wrong, does my entire argument or project collapse? If an AI tells you the capital of North Dakota is Bismarck to settle a trivial debate, a hallucination just costs you pride. But if you are using a specific fact or observation as the foundational premise of a research paper, a syllabus module, or a legal argument, it requires deep verification. Fact-check the structural beams, not every speck on the wallpaper.
2. Missing the Meta-Context
As demonstrated by the Buckeye masquerading as a fall-foliage of the Sycamore in the middle of summer
If an AI generates an answer that conflicts with the physical laws of time, space, or seasonality, dig deeper. Large language models lack common sense about the physical world; when an answer feels disconnected from basic reality—like a pristine winter coat recommendation for a July hike in the Swiss Alps—trust your intuition and verify. (Note that your intuition is based on what YOU bring to the table. The more you know, the better your intuitions will be.)
3. "Too Neat and Tidy" Warning
Real-world data is messy, contradictory, and full of caveats. AI systems, however, hate that. They're statistically tuned to be highly agreeable and narrative-driven. If an AI provides an answer that perfectly resolves a notoriously complex debate, or gives a suspiciously clean historical timeline without any friction, it is time to stress-test the source. Reality rarely fits into a perfectly symmetrical box; if the answer reads like a Hollywood script resolving a plot hole, it’s highly suspect. Verify.
4. The SIFT Trigger: High Emotions Cause Checking
Applying the principles of the SIFT verification method (hat tip to Mike Caulfield), pay attention to your own internal reaction. Does the AI's response immediately validate your deepest held beliefs, or make you unexpectedly outraged?
Or... When you feel a strong emotional surge of "I knew it!" upon reading a result, that is precisely the moment you need to stop, step back, and triangulate the claim with an authoritative, independent source. When YOU feel completely validated is exactly the moment your guard needs to go up. Verify that feeling.
In both cases (very positive or very negative high emotions), you should breathe in and start a bit of checking.
In short..
You don't need to fact-check the weather forecast for your afternoon walk. But when the stakes are high, the context feels slightly off, the answer is too perfect, or your emotions spike, that’s your cue to stop reading and start researching.
And, as I've said before--the more you know, the better your intuition will be. I have pretty good knowledge about plants and trees, so I can smell a suspicious result when it comes over the digital transom.
Pro tip: To inoculate yourself against AI errors, spend the time to become fairly knowledgeable about the topic. You need to know enough to know when things seem shady, weird, or just a bit too-perfect.
Because... the more you know, the more you know.
Keep searching.
No comments:
Post a Comment