CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Misinformation and Its ImpactsEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesLibrary Science and Information Literacy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ai, Post-Truth Realities, and Thai Students’ Information-Seeking Behavior

Open access
Slutskiy, Pavel·2025·Manusya: Journal of Humanities
DOI 10.1163/26659077-20252811
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper investigates how ai challenges traditional verification, citation, and evaluation principles, thereby eroding truth. ai -generated content, lacking verifiable citations, operates on probabilistic models that present information as probable rather than factual. The widespread reliance on ai for information-seeking risks diminishing critical evaluation, blending fact with fiction, and compromising academic integrity. To explore these effects, a mixed-method study was conducted involving 240 Chulalongkorn University students who used various online resources like Google, Wikipedia, and ChatGPT to research Rudolf Carnap’s verificationism views. Their choices were analyzed to assess dependency patterns on these platforms. Further, a qualitative analysis compared ai -generated responses with verified sources to gauge their accuracy. This comprehensive approach revealed significant insights into students’ preferences for information sources and the critical importance of validating ai outputs in academic settings, underscoring the nuanced impacts of digital tools on traditional knowledge standards.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1163/26659077-20252811

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Alkaissi, Hussam, and Samy I. McFarlane. 2023. “Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing.” Cureus 15 (2): e35179. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35179. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Armstrong, David M. 1973. Belief, Truth and Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Bender, Emily M., Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?” In Proceedings of the 2021 acm Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ‘21), 610–623. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Chan, Anastasia. 2023. “gpt-3 and InstructGPT: Technological Dystopianism, Utopianism, and ‘Contextual’ Perspectives in ai Ethics and Industry.” ai and Ethics 3 (1): 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00148-6. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Davies, Martin. 1981. Meaning, Quantification, Necessity: Themes in Philosophical Logic. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  6. Karanouh, Maya. 2023. “Mapping ChatGPT in Mainstream Media: Early Quantitative Insights through Sentiment Analysis and Word Frequency Analysis.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18340. · arXiv
  7. Leiter, Christoph, Ran Zhang, Yanran Chen, Jonas Belouadi, Daniil Larionov, Vivian Fresen, and Steffen Eger. 2023. “ChatGPT: A Meta-Analysis after 2.5 Months.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13795. · arXiv
  8. Molyneux, Logan, and Mark Coddington. 2020. “Aggregation, Clickbait and Their Effect on Perceptions of Journalistic Credibility and Quality.” Journalism Practice 14 (4): 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1628658. · DOI
  9. Munn, Luke, Liam Magee, and Vanicka Arora. 2023. “Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in ai Language Models.” ai & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01756-4. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Ouchchy, Lydia, Alexandre Coin, and Veljko Dubljević. 2020. “ai in the Headlines: The Portrayal of the Ethical Issues of Artificial Intelligence in the Media.” ai & Society 35: 927–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00965-5. · DOI
  11. Pauncefort, Elizabeth. 2021. “Critical Literacy Is at the Heart of the Answer.” In Media, Technology and Education in a Post-Truth Society, edited by Alex Grech, 73–94. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
  12. Russell, Bertrand. 1912. The Problems of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press.
  13. Salvagno, Michele, Fabio Silvio Taccone, and Alberto Giovanni Gerli. 2023. “Artificial Intelligence Hallucinations.” Critical Care 27: 180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04473-y. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Soames, Scott. 1984. “What Is a Theory of Truth?” The Journal of Philosophy 81 (8): 411–429.
  15. Vergeer, Maurice. 2020. “Artificial Intelligence in the Dutch Press: An Analysis of Topics and Trends.” Communication Studies 71 (3): 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1733038. · DOI
  16. Vision, Gerald. 2004. Veritas: The Correspondence Theory and Its Critics. Cambridge, MA: mit Press.
  17. Walker, Ralph C. S. 1989. The Coherence Theory of Truth. London: Routledge.
  18. Xu, Ruiyun, Yue (Katherine) Feng, and Hailiang Chen. 2023. “ChatGPT vs. Google: A Comparative Study of Search Performance and User Experience.” ssrn Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4498671. · DOI
  19. Yu, Chengcheng, Jinzhe Yan, and Na Cai. 2024. “ChatGPT in Higher Education: Factors Influencing ChatGPT User Satisfaction and Continued Use Intention.” Frontiers in Education 9: 1354929. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1354929. · DOI
  20. Yu, Ping, Hua Xu, Xia Hu, and Chao Deng. 2023. “Leveraging Generative ai and Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Roadmap for Healthcare Integration.” Healthcare 11 (20): 2776. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11202776. · DOI
  21. Alkaissi, Hussam, and Samy I. McFarlane. 2023. “Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing.” Cureus 15 (2): e35179. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35179. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Armstrong, David M. 1973. Belief, Truth and Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Bender, Emily M., Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. “On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?” In Proceedings of the 2021 acm Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ‘21), 610–623. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Chan, Anastasia. 2023. “gpt-3 and InstructGPT: Technological Dystopianism, Utopianism, and ‘Contextual’ Perspectives in ai Ethics and Industry.” ai and Ethics 3 (1): 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00148-6. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Davies, Martin. 1981. Meaning, Quantification, Necessity: Themes in Philosophical Logic. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  26. Karanouh, Maya. 2023. “Mapping ChatGPT in Mainstream Media: Early Quantitative Insights through Sentiment Analysis and Word Frequency Analysis.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18340. · arXiv
  27. Leiter, Christoph, Ran Zhang, Yanran Chen, Jonas Belouadi, Daniil Larionov, Vivian Fresen, and Steffen Eger. 2023. “ChatGPT: A Meta-Analysis after 2.5 Months.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13795. · arXiv
  28. Molyneux, Logan, and Mark Coddington. 2020. “Aggregation, Clickbait and Their Effect on Perceptions of Journalistic Credibility and Quality.” Journalism Practice 14 (4): 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1628658. · DOI
  29. Munn, Luke, Liam Magee, and Vanicka Arora. 2023. “Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in ai Language Models.” ai & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01756-4. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Ouchchy, Lydia, Alexandre Coin, and Veljko Dubljević. 2020. “ai in the Headlines: The Portrayal of the Ethical Issues of Artificial Intelligence in the Media.” ai & Society 35: 927–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00965-5. · DOI
  31. Ouyang, Long, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. “Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155. · arXiv
  32. Pauncefort, Elizabeth. 2021. “Critical Literacy Is at the Heart of the Answer.” In Media, Technology and Education in a Post-Truth Society, edited by Alex Grech, 73–94. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
  33. Pavlik, John V. 2023. “Collaborating With ChatGPT: Considering the Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Journalism and Media Education.” Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 78 (1): 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958221149577. · DOI · Paper page
  34. Russell, Bertrand. 1912. The Problems of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press.
  35. Salvagno, Michele, Fabio Silvio Taccone, and Alberto Giovanni Gerli. 2023. “Artificial Intelligence Hallucinations.” Critical Care 27: 180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04473-y. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Soames, Scott. 1984. “What Is a Theory of Truth?” The Journal of Philosophy 81 (8): 411–429.
  37. Vergeer, Maurice. 2020. “Artificial Intelligence in the Dutch Press: An Analysis of Topics and Trends.” Communication Studies 71 (3): 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1733038. · DOI
  38. Vision, Gerald. 2004. Veritas: The Correspondence Theory and Its Critics. Cambridge, MA: mit Press.
  39. Walker, Ralph C. S. 1989. The Coherence Theory of Truth. London: Routledge.
  40. Xu, Ruiyun, Yue (Katherine) Feng, and Hailiang Chen. 2023. “ChatGPT vs. Google: A Comparative Study of Search Performance and User Experience.” ssrn Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4498671. · DOI
  41. Yu, Chengcheng, Jinzhe Yan, and Na Cai. 2024. “ChatGPT in Higher Education: Factors Influencing ChatGPT User Satisfaction and Continued Use Intention.” Frontiers in Education 9: 1354929. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1354929. · DOI
  42. Yu, Hao. 2024. “The Application and Challenges of ChatGPT in Educational Transformation: New Demands for Teachers’ Roles.” Heliyon 10 (2): e24289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24289. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Yu, Ping, Hua Xu, Xia Hu, and Chao Deng. 2023. “Leveraging Generative ai and Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Roadmap for Healthcare Integration.” Healthcare 11 (20): 2776. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11202776. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Slutskiy, P.
Affiliations
Chulalongkorn University (TH)
Corresponding author
Slutskiy, Pavel
ORCID
Slutskiy, Pavel
Venue
Manusya: Journal of Humanities
Publisher
Office of Academic Resources, Chulalongkorn University
Published
2025-11-18
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
1-19
ISSN
  • 0859-9920 (ISSN-L)
  • 2665-9077
DOI
10.1163/26659077-20252811
OpenAlex
W4417517141
Cited by
2
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
2.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Manusya Journal of Humanities (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
Keywords
artificial intelligence, post-truth, information seeking, Thai university students, AI-generated content, verificationism, Rudolf Carnap, academic integrity, critical appraisal, source validation, ChatGPT, Wikipedia, information source preferences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review