‘I hadn’t verified a single thing’: Using Chat GPT for Iran war news changed how I trust information | Tech Radar

Overview

News, deals, reviews, guides and more on the newest smartphones

News, deals, reviews, guides and more on the newest computing gadgets

Details

Start exploring exclusive deals, expert advice and more

Unlock and manage exclusive Techradar member rewards.

‘I hadn’t verified a single thing’: Using Chat GPT for Iran war news changed how I trust information

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works.

Unlock instant access to exclusive member features.

Get full access to premium articles, exclusive features and a growing list of member rewards.

A few weeks ago I started deliberately using Chat GPT to follow the latest news about the Iran war. It was partly a test to see how chatbots compare to traditional news sites at presenting real-time information, and partly because the pace of the news at the time was overwhelming.

But at some point I noticed I hadn't clicked through to verify a single thing. I'd just been absorbing whatever Chat GPT told me.

That's when I understood what I think is the real problem with using AI to search for news and information. Not that it gets things wrong sometimes (though it still does) but that as it gets better, it changes how we decide what to trust.

I asked experts whether I should use Chat GPT for health advice, and I was shocked

Chat GPT hallucinates, here's 5 ways to spot when it does

Using AI for search hasn't always been a good idea. Not all that long ago, Chat GPT didn't have access to real-time information. Google's AI Overviews was recommending people add glue to pizza to help the cheese stick and suggesting eating a rock a day. The problems with relying on AI for real-time, accurate information were obvious and easy to spot.

But a lot has improved in the past year. Models are now more accurate, information is more up to date (with many chatbots now accessing the internet in real-time) and sources are more likely to be cited.

AI search has shifted into what Ofcom recently called "answer engines" — tools that don't just point us towards information, but provide it directly, in plain conversational language.

All of this sounds good, and in many ways it is. I believe that for low stakes, quick queries, like a recipe, a definition, a travel tip or buying advice, then AI search can be genuinely useful. And that conversational format also helps you drill down, answer the right follow-up questions and find what you need faster than clicking through a list of links.

But I also think that this improvement in itself is a problem.

When AI search was obviously more flawed, many of us stayed alert. Now that it's better and more reliable, I worry that we're less likely to question it. And the conversational format plays a pretty major role in that.

We're wired to treat fluent, coherent language as credible. When something reads like a confident explanation, it's much harder for us to step back and interrogate it — even when we know we should. I've written about this same pattern across other areas of AI: in therapy, in relationships, in health advice. It’s very easy to offload our thinking to whatever AI tool we’re using and become way less likely to apply our own judgement.

AI chatbots may be too validating for their own good

AI is making us all sound the same at work — I tested it to see if it’s true

Ellen Scott, who I spoke to about this in a work context, called it smoothout — a kind of cognitive offloading where the effort of evaluating information gets absorbed by AI. It removes the friction that used to make you think.

Traditional search wasn't perfect, but it had that friction built in. You'd typically scan a list of links, look at the sources and make quick judgements about credibility. It was active, even when it felt automatic. AI search replaces all of that with a single synthesized answer delivered in a conversational (and sometimes sycophantic) tone. Which means you’re sitting back and receiving information rather than evaluating it.

We know from Pew Research that when an AI summary appears in search results, people are significantly less likely to click through to original sources. So, AI is effectively answering your question and reducing the likelihood that you'll check it.

Of course, AI search still isn't perfectly reliable every time either.

Hallucinations — where a chatbot confidently generates something that isn't true — haven't gone away. Citations are also still sometimes misleading or broken.

And there's another problem: sycophancy. Even though this is something AI companies are actively addressing, we know that AI systems still have a tendency to agree with you. This is often because these systems are optimized to feel like a good and natural conversation, but not necessarily to tell you the truth.

What makes this worse is that the improvements in accuracy make the remaining errors harder to spot. When a tool is obviously unreliable, I think we stay more critical of it. But when it's mostly right, I worry we stop checking, just like I did in my own experiment.

(Image credit: Getty Images / Francesco Carta fotografo)

The standard answer here is that people need better media literacy for the AI age, which I believe they do. Understanding what these systems are doing, treating AI outputs as a starting point rather than a conclusion, learning to question fluent confident language, all of that is incredibly important.

But the times we're most likely to reach for AI search — during fast-moving situations, when we need answers to high-stakes questions, in emotionally overwhelming events — are exactly the times when verification matters most and critical thinking is hardest.

In previous reporting I've spoken to therapists and doctors who've noticed the same pattern that patients often turn to AI during moments of crisis or distress, precisely when they're least likely to scrutinize what they're being told. That’s why the burden can't sit entirely with users.

If AI tools are going to sit at the center of how people find information, their design choices matter enormously. That has to mean clear attribution, interfaces that prompt you to check and follow through in finding more information from other sources, tools that show you what they didn't include, not just what they did.

AI search has gotten better, there's no doubt about it. I just think we need to be honest about what better actually means for how we find, process and understand information in the long-run.

Follow Tech Radar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button!

And of course you can also follow Tech Radar on Tik Tok for news, reviews, unboxings in video form, and get regular updates from us on Whats App too.

➡️ Read our full guide to the best business laptops

1. Best overall: Dell Precision 5690
2. Best on a budget: Acer Aspire 5
3. Best Mac Book: Apple Mac Book Pro 14-inch (M4)

Becca is a contributor to Tech Radar, a freelance journalist and author. She’s been writing about consumer tech and popular science for more than ten years, covering all kinds of topics, including why robots have eyes and whether we’ll experience the overview effect one day. She’s particularly interested in VR/AR, wearables, digital health, space tech and chatting to experts and academics about the future. She’s contributed to Tech Radar, T3, Wired, New Scientist, The Guardian, Inverse and many more. Her first book, Screen Time, came out in January 2021 with Bonnier Books. She loves science-fiction, brutalist architecture, and spending too much time floating through space in virtual reality.

You must confirm your public display name before commenting

1 Save $200 and get the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra at its preorder price for a limited time at Amazon

2 Interview: Vista Print talks branding, AI logos, and how small businesses can stand out

3 Mint Mobile's new Samsung Galaxy S26 series deal can save you up to $900 — enough to cover an entire device

4 Turbo Quant sadly won't fix the RAM crisis, analysts say — here's why

Tech Radar is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.

© Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

Key Takeaways

• News, deals, reviews, guides and more on the newest smartphones
• News, deals, reviews, guides and more on the newest computing gadgets
• Start exploring exclusive deals, expert advice and more
• Unlock and manage exclusive Techradar member rewards

• ‘I hadn’t verified a single thing’: Using Chat GPT for Iran war news changed how I trust information