[e12e]

> A human can then verify the ones with under 90% certainty.

How about the author actually reads the finished report a couple of times and checks all the references?

It really is the lowest bar - even lower maybe than running a spell check.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The hallucinations here (https://gptzero.me/news/investigations-kpmg/) would have passed a cursory reference check. It's easy to see when it's laid out in a table that "BNP Paribas. AI Integration: Transforming Financial Journeys. The Banking Scene, 2025." is a false citation, because the title doesn't quite match and it wrongly attributes BNP Paribas authorship to an article written about BNP Paribas by some random Belgian guy doing business as "The Banking Scene". It'd be a lot harder to see when you're skimming through browser tab 9 of 45 and see all the key words match up.

[e12e]

I'm not talking about a reference check by someone other than the author. You'd not put a reference in in the first place, that you hadn't read, since you couldn't formulate the text that relates to the reference?

Ed: thanks for the link - I hadn't seen that yet.

[palmotea]

> How about the author actually reads the finished report a couple of times and checks all the references?

But then you wouldn't be embracing the new agentic ways of working!

[danaris]

How about the author actually, y'know

authors

the report?

[figassis]

Even then, AI can still be helpful. My point is if you're going to use it, use it right, and not with the intent to deceive.