AI Search Engines Cite Incorrect News Sources at an Alarming 60% Rate, Study Says
hubie writes:
CJR study shows AI search services misinform users and ignore publisher exclusion requests:
A new study from Columbia Journalism Review's Tow Center for Digital Journalism finds serious accuracy issues with generative AI models used for news searches. The researchers tested eight AI-driven search tools by providing direct excerpts from real news articles and asking the models to identify each article's original headline, publisher, publication date, and URL. They discovered that the AI models incorrectly cited sources in more than 60 percent of these queries, raising significant concerns about their reliability in correctly attributing news content.
Researchers Klaudia Jawiska and Aisvarya Chandrasekar noted in their report that roughly 1 in 4 Americans now use AI models as alternatives to traditional search engines. Given that these models struggle significantly when specifically asked to attribute news sources, this raises broader questions about their general reliability.
Citation error rates varied notably among the tested platforms. Perplexity provided incorrect information in 37 percent of the queries tested, whereas ChatGPT Search incorrectly identified 67 percent (134 out of 200) of articles queried. Grok 3 demonstrated the highest error rate, at 94 percent. In total, researchers ran 1,600 queries across the eight different generative search tools.
The study highlighted a common trend among these AI models: rather than declining to respond when they lacked reliable information, the models frequently provided plausible-sounding but incorrect or speculative answers-known technically as confabulations. The researchers emphasized that this behavior was consistent across all tested models, not limited to just one tool.
Surprisingly, premium paid versions of these AI search tools fared even worse in certain respects. Perplexity Pro ($20/month) and Grok 3's premium service ($40/month) confidently delivered incorrect responses more often than their free counterparts. Though these premium models correctly answered a higher number of prompts, their reluctance to decline uncertain responses drove higher overall error rates.
[...] Mark Howard, chief operating officer at Time magazine, expressed concern to CJR about ensuring transparency and control over how Time's content appears via AI-generated searches. Despite these issues, Howard sees room for improvement in future iterations, stating, "Today is the worst that the product will ever be," citing substantial investments and engineering efforts aimed at improving these tools.
However, Howard also did some user shaming, suggesting it's the user's fault if they aren't skeptical of free AI tools' accuracy: "If anybody as a consumer is right now believing that any of these free products are going to be 100 percent accurate, then shame on them."
AI Search Has a Citation Problem
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.