Keep Factually independent

Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.

Loading...Time left: ...
Loading...Goal: $500

Fact check: Answers pre written for these ai idiots. You dont know the truth.

Checked on July 29, 2025

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal significant support for concerns about AI reliability and trustworthiness. AI systems are fundamentally limited and imprecise technologies that do not always provide accurate information [1]. Research shows that AI can produce persuasive-sounding justifications that may mislead human judgment, even when the underlying information is incorrect [2].

Public skepticism toward AI-generated content is substantial: nearly half of Americans don't want news from AI, and 20% believe publishers shouldn't use AI at all [3]. Most concerning is that 92% of people don't verify the answers they receive from AI systems, despite known issues with AI hallucination and misinformation [4]. Voter sentiment remains divided, with 47% viewing AI as a bad thing compared to 43% who see it positively [5].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement lacks important nuance about AI's actual capabilities and limitations. While AI systems do have significant flaws, they are not simply repositories of "pre-written answers" but complex systems that generate responses based on training data [6] [1].

The analyses emphasize that the solution isn't to dismiss AI entirely, but to develop critical thinking skills to properly evaluate AI-generated information [7] [8] [9]. Educational institutions and media literacy experts advocate for teaching people how to identify biases, evaluate evidence, and consider multiple perspectives when consuming any information, including AI-generated content [8].

Technology companies and AI developers would benefit from downplaying these limitations, as widespread skepticism could harm adoption and profitability. Conversely, traditional media organizations and educational institutions benefit from emphasizing AI's flaws, as this reinforces the value of human expertise and critical thinking education [3] [10].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The statement contains several problematic characterizations. The phrase "AI idiots" represents an oversimplified dismissal that ignores the complexity of AI systems and their varied applications [6]. The claim about "pre-written answers" misrepresents how modern AI systems actually function - they generate responses dynamically rather than retrieving pre-stored text [1].

The absolute assertion "You don't know the truth" is problematic because it suggests complete unreliability, when research shows AI systems can provide valuable information if properly verified and contextualized [2] [11]. This black-and-white framing discourages the critical thinking approach that experts actually recommend - which involves careful evaluation rather than wholesale rejection [12].

The statement's dismissive tone may inadvertently discourage people from developing the media literacy skills necessary to navigate an information landscape that increasingly includes AI-generated content [10] [11].

Want to dive deeper?
Can AI systems truly understand context and nuance?
What are the limitations of AI in generating original thought?
How can humans effectively evaluate the credibility of AI-generated content?
What role does bias play in AI training data and responses?
Can AI systems be designed to encourage critical thinking and skepticism?