CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 5Ethics and Social Impacts of AIUsability and User Interface DesignSpreadsheets and End-User Computing

The DOI matches its DataCite record, with a small difference in title or year.

When Copilot Becomes Autopilot: Generative AI's Critical Risk to Knowledge Work and a Critical Solution

Open access
Sarkar, Advait, Xiaotong, Xu, Toronto, Neil, Drosos, Ian, Poelitz, Christian·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2412.15030arXiv 2412.15030
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Generative AI, with its tendency to "hallucinate" incorrect results, may pose a risk to knowledge work by introducing errors. On the other hand, it may also provide unprecedented opportunities for users, particularly non-experts, to learn and apply advanced software features and greatly increase the scope and complexity of tasks they can successfully achieve. As an example of a complex knowledge workflow that is subject to risks and opportunities from generative AI, we consider the spreadsheet. AI hallucinations are an important challenge, but they are not the greatest risk posed by generative AI to spreadsheet workflows. Rather, as more work can be safely delegated to AI, the risk is that human critical thinking -- the ability to holistically and rigorously evaluate a problem and its solutions -- is degraded in the process. The solution is to design the interfaces of generative AI systems deliberately to foster and encourage critical thinking in knowledge work, building primarily on a long history of research on critical thinking tools for education. We discuss a prototype system for the activity of critical shortlisting in spreadsheets. The system uses generative AI to suggest shortlisting criteria and applies these criteria to sort rows in a spreadsheet. It also generates "provocations": short text snippets that critique the AI-generated criteria, highlighting risks, shortcomings, and alternatives. Our prototype opens up a rich and completely unexplored design space of critical thinking tools for modern AI-assisted knowledge work. We outline a research agenda for AI as a critic or provocateur, including questions about where and when provocations should appear, their form and content, and potential design trade-offs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2412.15030

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Kenneth C. Arnold, Krysta Chauncey, and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. Predictive text encourages predictable writing. IUI '20: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, March 2020. doi: 10.1145/3377325.3377523. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3377325.3377523. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Florian M Artinger, Gerd Gigerenzer, and Perke Jacobs. Satisficing: Integrating two traditions. Journal of Economic Literature, 60(2):598-635, 2022.
  3. George Chalhoub and Advait Sarkar. "It's Freedom to Put Things Where My Mind Wants": Understanding and Improving the User Experience of Structuring Data in Spreadsheets. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '22, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450391573. doi: 10.1145/3491102.3501833. URL https://doi.org/10. 1145/3491102.3501833. · DOI
  4. Yupeng Chang, Xu Wang, Jindong Wang, Yuan Wu, Linyi Yang, Kaijie Zhu, Hao Chen, Xiaoyuan Yi, Cunxiang Wang, Yidong Wang, et al. A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 2023.
  5. Valdemar Danry, Pat Pataranutaporn, Yaoli Mao, and Pattie Maes. Don't just tell me, ask me: Ai systems that intelligently frame explanations as questions improve human logical discernment accuracy over causal ai explanations. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '23, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450394215. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3580672. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580672. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Fabrizio Dell'Acqua, Edward McFowland III, Ethan R. Mollick, Hila Lifshitz-Assaf, Katherine Kellogg, Saran Rajendran, Lisa Krayer, François Candelon, and Karim R. Lakhani. Navigating the jagged technological frontier: Field experimental evidence of the effects of ai on knowledge worker productivity and quality. Working Paper 24-013, Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt. Unit, September 2023. URL https: //ssrn.com/abstract=4573321.
  7. Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Mojtaba Komeili, Jing Xu, Roberta Raileanu, Xian Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Jason Weston. Chain-of-verification reduces hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11495, 2023. · arXiv
  8. Ian Drosos, Advait Sarkar, Xiaotong Xu, Carina Negreanu, Sean Rintel, and Lev Tankelevitch. "It's like a rubber duck that talks back": Understanding Generative AI-Assisted Data Analysis Workflows through a Participatory Prompting Study. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work, CHIWORK '24, 2024.
  9. Robert H Ennis. Critical thinking assessment. Theory into practice, 32(3):179-186, 1993.
  10. Noreen C Facione, Peter A. Facione, and Carol A. Sanchez. Critical thinking disposi- tion as a measure of competent clinical judgment: The development of the california crit- ical thinking disposition inventory. Journal of Nursing Education, 33(8):345-350, 10 1994. URL https://ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/ critical-thinking-disposition-as-measure/docview/1026710544/se-2. Copyright -Copyright SLACK INCORPORATED Oct 1994; Last updated -2023-02-22; CODEN -JNUEAW.
  11. Peter A Facione, Carol A Sanchez, Noreen C Facione, and Joanne Gainen. The disposition toward critical thinking. The Journal of General Education, 44(1):1-25, 1995.
  12. Peter A Facione et al. Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight assessment, 1(1):1-23, 2011.
  13. Bill Gaver and John Bowers. Annotated portfolios. interactions, 19(4):40-49, 2012.
  14. Andrew D. Gordon, Carina Negreanu, José Cambronero, Rasika Chakravarthy, Ian Drosos, Hao Fang, Bhaskar Mitra, Hannah Richardson, Advait Sarkar, Stephanie Simmons, Jack Williams, and Ben Zorn. Co-audit: tools to help humans double-check AI-generated content. Proceedings of the 14th annual workshop on the intersection of HCI and PL (PLATEAU 2024), 5 2024. doi: 10.1184/R1/25587552.v1. URL https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/conference_contribution/Co-audit_tools_to_help_ humans_double-check_AI-generated_content/25587552. · DOI
  15. Adrian Holzer, Sten Govaerts, Samuel Bendahan, and Denis Gillet. Towards mobile blended interaction fostering critical thinking. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct, MobileHCI '15, page 735-742, New York, NY, USA, 2015. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450336536. doi: 10.1145/2786567.2793695. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1145/2786567.2793695. · DOI
  16. Adrian Holzer, Nava Tintarev, Samuel Bendahan, Bruno Kocher, Shane Greenup, and Denis Gillet. Digitally scaffolding debate in the classroom. In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA '18, page 1-6, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450356213. doi: 10.1145/3170427.3188499. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3170427.3188499. · DOI
  17. Kenneth E Iverson. Notation as a tool of thought. In ACM Turing award lectures, page 1979. 2007.
  18. Maurice Jakesch, Advait Bhat, Daniel Buschek, Lior Zalmanson, and Mor Naaman. Co-writing with opinionated language models affects users' views. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '23, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450394215. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581196. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581196. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Nima Joharizadeh, Advait Sarkar, Andrew D. Gordon, and Jack Williams. Gridlets: Reusing spreadsheet grids. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA '20, page 1-7, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450368193. doi: 10.1145/3334480.3382806. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382806. · DOI
  20. David Kember, Doris YP Leung, Alice Jones, Alice Yuen Loke, Jan McKay, Kit Sinclair, Harrison Tse, Celia Webb, Frances Kam Yuet Wong, Marian Wong, et al. Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 25(4):381-395, 2000.
  21. David Kember, Jan McKay, Kit Sinclair, and Frances Kam Yuet Wong. A four-category scheme for coding and assessing the level of reflection in written work. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 33(4):369-379, 2008.
  22. Charles W Kneupper. Teaching argument: An introduction to the toulmin model. College Composition and Communication, 29(3):237-241, 1978.
  23. Aleksander Kobylarek, Kamil Błaszczyński, Luba Ślósarz, and Martyna Madej. Critical thinking questionnaire (cthq)-construction and application of critical thinking test tool. Andragogy Adult Education and Social Marketing, 2(2):1-1, 2022.
  24. Deanna Kuhn. Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-), pages 74-103, 1993.
  25. Todd Kulesza, Margaret Burnett, Weng-Keen Wong, and Simone Stumpf. Principles of explanatory debugging to personalize interactive machine learning. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on intelligent user interfaces, pages 126-137, 2015.
  26. Sunok Lee, Dasom Choi, Minha Lee, Jonghak Choi, and Sangsu Lee. Fostering youth's critical thinking competency about ai through exhibition. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '23, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450394215. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581159. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581159. · DOI
  27. Junyi Li, Xiaoxue Cheng, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. Halueval: A large-scale halluci- nation evaluation benchmark for large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6449-6464, 2023.
  28. Michael Xieyang Liu, Advait Sarkar, Carina Negreanu, Benjamin Zorn, Jack Williams, Neil Toronto, and Andrew D. Gordon. "what it wants me to say": Bridging the abstraction gap between end-user programmers and code-generating large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '23, New York, NY, USA, 2023a. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450394215. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3580817. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580817. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Yang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang, Ruochen Xu, and Chenguang Zhu. G-eval: NLG evaluation using gpt-4 with better human alignment. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali, editors, Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2511-2522, Singapore, December 2023b. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.153. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp-main.153. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Richard L Miller and William Wozniak. Counter-attitudinal advocacy: Effort vs. self-generation of arguments. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6(4):46-55, 2001.
  31. Jennifer Wilson Mulnix. Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and theory, 44(5): 464-479, 2012.
  32. Quoc Dinh Nguyen, Nicolas Fernandez, Thierry Karsenti, and Bernard Charlin. What is reflection? a conceptual analysis of major definitions and a proposal of a five-component model. Medical education, 48(12):1176-1189, 2014.
  33. Raymond R Panko. What we know about spreadsheet errors. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 10(2):15-21, 1998.
  34. Raymond R Panko and Salvatore Aurigemma. Revising the panko-halverson taxonomy of spreadsheet errors. Decision Support Systems, 49(2):235-244, 2010.
  35. Sheila A. Paul. Assessment of critical thinking: A delphi study. Nurse Education Today, 34(11):1357-1360, 2014. ISSN 0260-6917. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.03.008. URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0260691714000811. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In Proceedings of international conference on intelligence analysis, volume 5, pages 2-4.
  37. Karl Popper. The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge, 2005.
  38. Stephen G Powell, Kenneth R Baker, and Barry Lawson. A critical review of the literature on spreadsheet errors. Decision Support Systems, 46(1):128-138, 2008.
  39. Behnam Rahdari, Hao Ding, Ziwei Fan, Yifei Ma, Zhuotong Chen, Anoop Deoras, and Branislav Kveton. Logic- scaffolding: Personalized aspect-instructed recommendation explanation generation using llms. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM '24. ACM, March 2024. doi: 10.1145/3616855.3635689. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3616855.3635689. · DOI
  40. Kamalasen Rajalingham, David R Chadwick, and Brian Knight. Classification of spreadsheet errors. arXiv preprint arXiv:0805.4224, 2008. · arXiv
  41. Stuart Reeves. Human-computer interaction as science. In Proceedings of The fifth decennial aarhus conference on critical alternatives, pages 73-84, 2015.
  42. Leon Reicherts, Gun Woo Park, and Yvonne Rogers. Extending chatbots to probe users: Enhancing complex decision-making through probing conversations. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Conversational User Interfaces, CUI '22, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450397391. doi: 10.1145/3543829.3543832. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3543829.3543832. · DOI
  43. Raafat George Saadé, Danielle Morin, and Jennifer DE Thomas. Critical thinking in e-learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5):1608-1617, 2012.
  44. Advait Sarkar. Constructivist design for interactive machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, pages 1467-1475, 2016a.
  45. Advait Sarkar. Interactive analytical modelling. Technical Report UCAM-CL-TR-920, University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory, May 2016b. URL https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-920. pdf. Advait Sarkar. Is explainable AI a race against model complexity? In Workshop on Transparency and Explanations in Smart Systems (TeXSS), in conjunction with ACM Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2022), number 3124 in CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pages 192-199, March 2022. URL http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3124/ paper22.pdf.
  46. Advait Sarkar. Exploring Perspectives on the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Creativity of Knowledge Work: Beyond Mechanised Plagiarism and Stochastic Parrots. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work, CHIWORK '23, New York, NY, USA, 2023a. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400708077. doi: 10.1145/3596671.3597650. URL https: //doi.org/10.1145/3596671.3597650. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Advait Sarkar. Will Code Remain a Relevant User Interface for End-User Programming with Generative AI Mod- els? Onward! 2023, page 153-167, New York, NY, USA, 2023b. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400703881. doi: 10.1145/3622758.3622882. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3622758.3622882. · DOI
  48. Advait Sarkar. Should Computers Be Easy To Use? Questioning the Doctrine of Simplicity in User Interface Design. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA '23, New York, NY, USA, 2023c. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450394222. doi: 10.1145/3544549.3582741. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3582741. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Advait Sarkar. AI Should Challenge, Not Obey. Communications of the ACM, September 2024a. ISSN 0001-0782. doi: 10.1145/3649404. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3649404. Online First. · DOI · Paper page
  50. Advait Sarkar. Large language models cannot explain themselves. In ACM CHI 2024 Workshop on Human- Centered Explainable AI (HCXAI), 2024b.
  51. Advait Sarkar, Alan F. Blackwell, Mateja Jamnik, and Martin Spott. Interaction with uncertainty in visualisations. In Eurographics/IEEE VGTC Conference on Visualization (EuroVis 2015). The Eurographics Association, 2015. doi: 10.2312/eurovisshort.20151138. URL https://diglib.eg.org/handle/10.2312/eurovisshort. 20151138.133-137http://dx.doi.org/10.2312/eurovisshort.20151138. · DOI
  52. Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
  53. Peter Seixas and Carla Peck. Teaching historical thinking. Challenges and prospects for Canadian social studies, pages 109-117, 2004.
  54. Abigail Sellen and Eric Horvitz. The rise of the ai co-pilot: Lessons for design from aviation and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14713, 2023. · arXiv
  55. Elaine Simpson and Mary Courtney. Critical thinking in nursing education: Literature review. International journal of nursing practice, 8(2):89-98, 2002.
  56. Sruti Srinivasa Ragavan, Advait Sarkar, and Andrew D Gordon. Spreadsheet comprehension: Guesswork, giving up and going back to the author. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '21, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450380966. doi: 10.1145/3411764.3445634. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445634. · DOI · Paper page
  57. Robert J Sternberg and Diane F Halpern. Critical thinking in psychology. Cambridge University Press, 2020.
  58. Erik Stolterman. The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 2008.
  59. Na Sun, Chien Wen (Tina) Yuan, Mary Beth Rosson, Yu Wu, and Jack M. Carroll. Critical thinking in collaboration: Talk less, perceive more. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA '17, page 2944-2950, New York, NY, USA, 2017. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450346566. doi: 10.1145/3027063.3053250. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3027063.3053250. · DOI
  60. Lev Tankelevitch, Viktor Kewenig, Auste Simkute, Ava Elizabeth Scott, Advait Sarkar, Abigail Sellen, and Sean Rintel. The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '24, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400703300. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642902. URL https://doi.org/10. 1145/3613904.3642902. · DOI · Paper page
  61. Chun-Yen Tsai, Chih-Neng Lin, Wen-Ling Shih, and Pai-Lu Wu. The effect of online argumentation upon students' pseudoscientific beliefs. Computers & Education, 80:187-197, 2015. ISSN 0360-1315. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.018. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0360131514001997. · DOI
  62. C. J. Wild and M. Pfannkuch. Statistical thinking in empirical enquiry. International Statistical Review, 67(3): 223-248, 1999. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.1999.tb00442.x. URL https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1751-5823.1999.tb00442.x. · DOI
  63. Jack Williams, Carina Negreanu, Andrew D. Gordon, and Advait Sarkar. Understanding and inferring units in spreadsheets. In 2020 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), pages 1-9, 2020. doi: 10.1109/VL/HCC50065.2020.9127254. · DOI
  64. Daniel T. Willingham. Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4): 21-32, 2008. doi: 10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32. URL https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.109.4.21-32. · DOI · Paper page
  65. Yue Zhang, Yafu Li, Leyang Cui, Deng Cai, Lemao Liu, Tingchen Fu, Xinting Huang, Enbo Zhao, Yu Zhang, Yulong Chen, et al. Siren's song in the ai ocean: a survey on hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01219, 2023. · arXiv
  66. Zhiying Zhu, Zhiqing Sun, and Yiming Yang. Halueval-wild: Evaluating hallucinations of language models in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04307, 2024. · arXiv
  67. Esperanza Zuriguel-Pérez, Anna Falcó-Pegueroles, Juan Roldán-Merino, Sandra Agustino-Rodriguez, Maria del Carmen Gómez-Martín, and Maria Teresa Lluch-Canut. Development and psychometric properties of the nursing critical thinking in clinical practice questionnaire. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(4): 257-264, 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sarkar, A., Xiaotong, Xu, Toronto, N., Drosos, I., & Poelitz, C.
Affiliations
Tone
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2412.15030
arXiv
2412.15030
OpenAlex
W4405644691
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Spreadsheets and End-User Computing
Keywords
generative AI, knowledge work, AI hallucination, critical thinking, AI-assisted decision-making, provocation, interface design, AI delegation

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