How to catch made-up facts in AI-generated content
Why AI can add convincing but unsupported details, and how to check facts, citations, summaries, and rewrites before sharing them.
An AI-written event announcement can read smoothly while adding “free admission,” a weekly schedule, and a registration link that never appeared in the notes.
These small additions matter. A reader may plan around the price or follow a link that has no connection to the event. Checking AI-generated content means looking for unsupported details as well as obvious errors.
Why a convincing answer can still be wrong
Language models generate text from learned patterns. That process can produce accurate explanations, but it can also produce false information in a confident voice. NIST describes this risk as confabulation, often called an AI hallucination. See section 2.2 of its Generative AI Profile.
There is also a training and evaluation problem. In Why Language Models Hallucinate, researchers argue that rewarding correct answers while giving no credit for admitting uncertainty can encourage guessing. That is an explanation of part of the problem, not a claim that every error has the same cause.
For a writer, the consequence is practical: a confident tone does not tell you whether a statement was checked.
Look for details that were never supplied
Use this fictional event notice as an example:
The book swap takes place on Sunday at 11:00 in the Maple Street community room. Visitors can bring up to three books in readable condition. A volunteer explains the exchange before it starts.
Now consider an illustrative expanded version:
Join our free weekly book swap every Sunday. Register online to reserve your place, and bring three books to exchange.
Several facts have changed:
| Detail in the expanded version | What the original notice says | What needs correcting |
|---|---|---|
| Free attendance | No fee is mentioned | Confirm the price or omit it |
| A weekly event | One Sunday is mentioned | Remove the recurring schedule |
| Online registration | No booking process is given | Remove the instruction |
| Exactly three books | Up to three books | Restore the allowed range |
The last change is easy to overlook. It does not invent a new topic, but it turns a maximum into a requirement. Look for changes to words such as “may,” “must,” “up to,” and “usually.” They can change the meaning of otherwise familiar sentences.
Check citations outside the AI conversation
A source-shaped reference needs checking just like any other claim. Open the original page or paper and find the statement the draft relies on.
For a research claim, check the authors, title, publication date, and relevant passage. For product information, use current official documentation. For a quotation, compare the wording and attribution with the original record.
If a source exists but does not support the claim, the citation still needs correcting. A paper about one group does not automatically establish the same result for everyone. Keep the conditions that matter to the reader.
Do not rely on asking the same AI whether its answer is accurate. A second response can suggest things to investigate, but the evidence still has to come from the source.
Watch what changes during summaries and rewrites
Fact-checking is not limited to articles written from scratch. A summary can remove a qualification; a rewrite can make a modest claim sound certain.
Compare these two illustrative sentences:
In this small trial, some participants reported that the reminders helped them stay organized.
Reminders help people stay organized.
The shorter sentence drops the size of the trial, the limited group, and the fact that the result was self-reported. It makes a broader claim than the original. If those limits matter, the summary needs to keep them.
For numbers, check the unit, time period, and comparison. For instructions, check the order and any conditions. Read the revised version against the source rather than judging it only for fluency.
Make unanswered questions visible
When briefing an AI tool, identify missing details explicitly. In the event example, you could add:
The notes do not specify a fee, recurring schedule, or booking process.
Do not supply those details. List them as questions for the organizer.
Preserve “up to three books”; do not turn it into a requirement.
This gives you a clearer review task. It does not remove the need to check the result.
If you are starting with scattered notes, turn them into a focused article brief first. After drafting, check the statements a reader could act on: dates, prices, eligibility, instructions, quotations, and promised results.
When a detail cannot be confirmed, remove it, narrow the claim, or ask the person responsible. A short, accurate notice gives the reader more useful information than a polished one that sends them to the wrong place.