Checking What It Gives You
Verify in Proportion to the Stakes
Checking everything is unrealistic and you will stop doing it within a week. Checking nothing is how a fabricated statistic ends up in your coursework. The workable rule is proportion. Ask what happens if this particular claim is wrong. If the answer is "the sentence reads slightly differently", move on. If it is "I lose marks, mislead a reader, or repeat something false to other people", verify before you use it. Specific, checkable, consequential claims get checked. Phrasing, structure and general explanation do not. This takes about thirty seconds of judgement per piece of work and saves you from the failure mode that actually hurts.
- Always check: statistics, dates, names, quotations, citations, formulas, legal or medical specifics
- Rarely check: tone, structure, wording of your own ideas, brainstormed options you will evaluate anyway
- The question is not "could this be wrong" but "what happens if it is"
- Anything you will repeat to another person deserves a check
How to Actually Check, Fast
Open the source. Not the model's description of the source, the source. If it named a study, find the study; if it cannot be found in a minute, treat it as fabricated. For a factual claim, look for a second, independent confirmation — independent meaning genuinely separate, not three sites all quoting the same original post. For maths, redo the calculation. For code, run it. Asking the same model to double-check itself is the weakest method available, because it will happily generate a confident confirmation of its own error using exactly the same process that produced it.
- Open cited sources yourself — an unfindable source is a fabricated source
- Two sources repeating one origin is one source; check where the claim actually started
- Re-run maths and execute code rather than reading a description of what it does
- Self-checking by the same model catches far less than people assume
Know Enough to Spot the Error
There is an uncomfortable dependency here: your ability to catch mistakes scales with how much you already know. In a subject you understand, an error jumps out. In a subject you are just starting, everything reads as equally plausible, so you cannot supervise the output at all. That is the exact situation you are in when you use AI for a topic you are still learning — which is most of school. It is another argument for using AI to build understanding rather than to replace it. The more you know, the more safely you can use it, which is the opposite of how people usually assume it works.
- You cannot verify what you do not understand, so beginners face the highest risk
- Learning the material makes AI more useful to you, not less necessary
- In an unfamiliar area, weight external sources more heavily than the model's answer
- Treat unexplained confidence in a topic you cannot judge as a reason to slow down
Prefer slides, quizzes, and saved progress? Read this lesson in the library — free, no sign-up.