Is Factually run by AI

1. What the reporting actually documents about AI-powered fact checking

Multiple sources describe fact-checking organisations and tools that use AI to speed monitoring, surface claims and assist workflows: Full Fact’s AI product is described as scalable software used by fact-checkers and 45 organisations in 30 countries, and Full Fact reports that its tools help identify critical misinformation and speed transcription and monitoring tasks ^{[1] [2]}. Logically, a separate company, advertises that it uses AI to filter claims and assign credibility scores before human review ^[7]. These citations show a pattern of AI-as-tool rather than AI-as-autonomous operator ^{[1] [7] [2]}.

2. Specific examples labelled “Factually” or similar and what they claim

A commercial product called Factually Health openly markets itself as an “AI-powered health information platform” that pulls from “constantly updated, fact-checked datasets” with a proprietary method, explicitly framing AI as the engine for delivering content while implying human-curated inputs and datasets underpin the product ^[3]. Meanwhile, a domain/facade (factualai.com) appears in the results as a site-builder SEO product unrelated to fact-checking, illustrating brand-name ambiguity across sources ^[8]. Neither source claims a fully autonomous organisation run entirely by AI ^{[3] [8]}.

3. The reporting’s implicit and explicit claims about human oversight

Authors and organisations cited stress human roles: Full Fact positions itself as fact-checkers “with ten years’ experience” who built AI tools to relieve operational pain points, indicating humans design, curate and interpret AI outputs ^[2]. Expert coverage of how fact-checkers use AI emphasizes that AI should be used for language tasks, not as a standalone knowledge oracle—again pointing to human oversight in knowledge-intensive judgments ^[9]. This pattern supports the interpretation that AI augments, rather than runs, fact-checking operations ^{[2] [9]}.

4. Legal, ownership and governance context that undermines the notion of AI “running” organisations

Legal and governance literature in the supplied reporting reiterates that organisations and humans retain ownership and governance responsibilities: articles advise companies to define who owns AI outputs via contracts and to place AI governance under organisational control, with shared ownership models and explicit IP clauses to prevent ambiguity ^{[4] [5] [6] [10]}. The World Economic Forum piece explicitly states current legal frameworks keep rights and liability human-centred while exploring shared ownership models if AI’s role grows ^[10]. Those sources imply corporations and legal actors, not AI systems, remain in control ^{[4] [5] [10] [6]}.

5. What the reporting does not show — the key gap

None of the supplied sources provide a factual claim or evidence that an entity called “Factually” is fully operated, managed, or governed autonomously by AI; when “Factually” or similar brands appear, the texts describe AI-assisted products or tools but also describe human teams, legal frameworks, or proprietary datasets that impart human control ^{[3] [1] [2]}. Because the provided reporting lacks any direct statement that an entire organisation called “Factually” is run by AI, that specific assertion cannot be confirmed from these documents ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Conclusion: measured answer based on the reporting

Based on the supplied reporting, the accurate conclusion is that “Factually”-branded services and fact-checking organisations use AI as a prominent operational tool, but there is no evidence here that a business called “Factually” is entirely run by AI; instead, humans and legal/contractual structures remain the decision-makers and owners of outputs according to the sources ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [6]}. The materials consistently show AI as an enabler that requires human governance, not as a replacement for organisational management ^{[9] [10]}.