An AI answer with a citation still needs checking. Open the linked page, find the statement it is supposed to support, and check the date and scope. A real link can lead to a real article without proving the sentence beside it.
That's the awkward part. A tidy list of sources looks reassuring, especially when the answer arrives in seconds. But the work isn't finished just because the footnotes look finished.
What a citation test actually found
A March 2025 Tow Center study tested eight AI search tools using excerpts from news articles. Researchers asked the tools to identify the original article's headline, publisher, date and URL.
The study documented incorrect attributions and fabricated links. Its task was identifying news sources from supplied excerpts, not measuring the accuracy of every kind of answer an AI system can give.
Keep that last distinction. A historical test is evidence of a problem worth checking, not a timeless score for today's models. Turning its results into a claim that every current AI answer has the same chance of being wrong would repeat the very mistake this article is warning about.
Check the sentence, not the source list
Google's Gemini help page says that sources can provide links related to parts of a response and that not every response includes source links.
Related is the word to notice. A page about a product may not support the particular feature, release date or price an answer attaches to it.
Try this hypothetical example: an assistant says a service is free for everyone and links to a launch announcement. The announcement might actually describe a temporary trial in selected countries. The source exists. The broad claim still doesn't follow.
No brand or real offer is being alleged in that example. It's a way to spot a common kind of mismatch: the answer drops the conditions that made the original statement true.
A short verification routine
- Open the page yourself. Check that the address belongs to the claimed publisher. A convincing-looking link label is not the destination.
- Locate the support. Search the page for the name, number or phrase that matters. Read the surrounding paragraph, not just the matching words.
- Check the date and limits. Look for country restrictions, trial periods, model versions and words such as proposed, estimated or reportedly.
- Find the original. If a report quotes a company announcement or research paper, follow that trail. Several sites repeating the same announcement are not several independent confirmations.
- Leave unresolved claims unresolved. If you can't reach the evidence, don't turn the assistant's confidence into your own.
Our recommendation: ask the assistant to identify which passage supports each important claim. That can help you navigate a source. It is not a substitute for reading it, and a second answer from the same tool is not an independent check.
Spend your effort where an error matters
A film recommendation and a deadline you cannot afford to miss deserve different levels of scrutiny. For something consequential, go to the responsible organisation's current guidance or a suitably qualified professional.
For everyday research, AI can still be a useful starting point: it can suggest questions, organise what you've found and highlight a term to investigate. The habit to avoid is letting the neatness of the answer decide how much trust it receives.
One well-matched source is more useful than ten impressive-looking links that you haven't opened.
Reader Discussion