Last edited Sun Dec 14, 2025, 12:23 AM - Edit history (5)
Popular Science, 12/12/25
(edited to add the above line, even though it's in the subject line where it admittedly is easy to overlook. And the original source deserves prominence. But anyone expecting me to do a search of the Popular Science website to find a more direct link is out of luck. Almost nobody does that. If it's such a big deal to some, it's always an option to go dig up the link and post it as a reply, rather than just complaining)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/librarians-can-t-keep-up-with-bad-ai/ar-AA1SfhCN
Excerpts --
Programs like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot are still prone to offering made-up information and facts. As bad as that is on its own, the issue is further complicated by a tendency for these AI programs to produce seemingly reputable, yet wholly imaginary, sources. But as annoying as that is for millions of users, it’s becoming a major issue for the people trusted to provide reliable, real information: librarians.
“For our staff, it is much harder to prove that a unique record doesn’t exist,” Sarah Falls, a research engagement librarian at the Library of Virginia, told Scientific American.
Falls estimated that around 15 percent of all the reference questions received by her staff are written by generative AI, some of which include imaginary citations and sources. This increased burden placed on librarians and institutions is so bad that even organizations like the
International Committee of the Red Cross are putting people on notice about the problem. . . . “Because their ((AI's)) purpose is to generate content, they cannot indicate that no information exists; instead, they will invent details that appear plausible but have no basis in the archival record.”
Instead of asking a program like ChatGPT for a list of ICRC reports, the organization suggests you engage directly with their publicly available information catalogue (
https://archives.icrc.org/search/advanced ) and scholarly archives (
https://library.icrc.org/library/ ). The same strategy should be extended to any institution.
The last paragraph is specific to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). So it's just an example for one organization.
Bolding and double parenthesis items are progree's
https://archives.icrc.org/home
ICRC PUBLIC ARCHIVES HOLDINGS
The Archives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) document the history and activities of the organization since its creation in 1863. They are governed by the current institution’s access rules and available for consultation at the ICRC’s headquarters in Geneva upon request.
= new reply since forum marked as read