AI can read fast. It cannot vouch for truth. If you treat it as a summarizer, it will help you. If you treat it as a source, it will mislead you.
This guide shows what AI does well, where it fails, and a simple workflow that keeps research accurate for non-technical users.
The short version (one-minute summary)
- AI is good at synthesis: summarizing, comparing, and rewriting what you provide.
- AI is bad at sourcing: citations, quotes, stats, and timelines it did not see are often wrong.
- The fix is simple: you gather sources, then force the AI to work only with those sources.
What AI does well (when you give it sources)
These strengths show up only when the AI works with material you provide.
1) Summarizing long documents
Paste a report or upload a PDF and ask for a summary. The AI compresses what is already there.
Example prompt
Summarize the document below in 7 bullets.
Use only information in the text. If a detail is missing, say "Not in document."
[Paste the document]
2) Comparing multiple sources
Give it 2-5 sources and ask for agreement, disagreement, and gaps. This is “synthesis” in practice.
Example prompt
Compare these sources on renewable energy costs.
Source A: [paste]
Source B: [paste]
Source C: [paste]
List:
1) Where they agree
2) Where they disagree
3) What none of them address
3) Restructuring for a different audience
It can turn a technical summary into an executive brief or a public explainer without changing the facts.
Example prompt
Rewrite the summary for a non-technical audience.
Keep every claim and piece of evidence. Do not add new claims.
What AI does poorly (and why it matters)
AI systems predict words. They are not connected to a fact database unless you connect them. That is why they can sound confident and still be wrong. That means:
1) It invents citations
If it has not seen the paper, it can still output a perfect-looking citation. It is guessing.
2) It fabricates statistics
Numbers are especially dangerous. The AI may output a plausible percentage that never existed.
3) It fabricates quotes
Even famous quotes are often paraphrases or inventions.
4) It misorders timelines
Recent events are especially risky. Dates get swapped or compressed.
Rule of thumb: If a claim didn’t come from your provided sources, treat it as unverified.
A simple example (good vs bad)
Bad prompt (invites hallucinations)
How effective are seat belts? Provide statistics and cite your sources.
Typical bad output (illustrative, not real)
- “Seat belts cut fatalities by 70% and saved 25,000 lives in 2022 (Journal of Road Safety).”
This looks credible but could be entirely fabricated. There is no source trail.
Good prompt (forces grounding)
Use only the sources below. If a detail is missing, say "Not in sources."
Source A (CDC): "Seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half."[^1]
Source B (NHTSA): "Seat belt use in passenger vehicles saved an estimated 14,955 lives in 2017."[^2]
Summarize the evidence.
Expected output
- CDC says seat belts reduce serious injuries and deaths by about half.
- NHTSA estimates seat belts saved 14,955 lives in 2017.
- No other effectiveness statistics are in the sources.
In real research, replace these excerpts with the exact text you plan to cite.
A high-stakes example (health)
This is where a wrong answer can harm people. Use AI only to summarize verified sources, never to invent guidance.
Bad prompt (dangerous and vague)
What should I do in an opioid overdose? Give steps and sources.
Typical bad output (illustrative, not real)
- “Give one dose of naloxone and wait; if they wake up, no need to call 911.”
This is unsafe because the model is guessing. There is no evidence trail.
Good prompt (forces evidence and flags gaps)
Use only the sources below. If a detail is missing, say "Not in sources."
Source A (FDA): "Naloxone is a life-saving drug that, when sprayed into the nose or injected, quickly reverses the powerful effects of opioids during an overdose."[^3]
Source B (FDA): "Naloxone is a temporary treatment, and its effects do not last long, thus it is extremely important to still call 911."[^3]
Summarize the guidance and clearly state what is missing.
Expected output
- FDA says naloxone can quickly reverse opioid overdose effects.
- FDA says naloxone is temporary and you should still call 911.
- Specific dosing or device steps are not in the sources.
This is not medical advice. It demonstrates why missing information must be flagged, not invented.
A safe workflow for research synthesis
This is the simplest version that works reliably.
Step 0: Define the question
Write the exact question you are trying to answer in one sentence. This keeps the AI from wandering.
Step 1: Gather sources yourself
Use trusted sites, databases, or PDFs. This is the part you cannot outsource.
Step 2: Feed sources to the AI
Paste text or upload documents. The AI must see the evidence.
Step 3: Ask for synthesis only
Tell it to use only the provided sources and to label gaps.
Prompt template
Based only on the sources below:
- summarize the main claims
- list disagreements
- note any missing data
If a detail is not in the sources, write "Not in sources."
[Paste sources]
Step 4: Verify anything that goes beyond the sources
If the AI adds a claim, a number, or a citation you cannot trace back, verify it manually or remove it.
Step 5: Keep a clean source trail
Record where each claim comes from. A simple table is enough:
| Claim | Source | Location |
|---|---|---|
| “Costs fell 24%” | Source B | p. 12 |
Verification checklist (print this)
- Did I provide every source the AI used?
- Can I point to the exact line/page for each statistic?
- Are any quotes fully verified against the original?
- Does every date come from a source, not the model?
- Did the model add context I did not provide?
When you should use advanced tools
If you do a lot of research, consider a “retrieval” workflow: the AI searches a trusted library and then answers with citations. You still verify, but you start with grounded evidence.
If you do not have that tooling, stick to the manual workflow above. It is slower, but accurate.
AI does not replace research judgment. It accelerates the reading, comparing, and restructuring that consume time without requiring expertise.
Your role is to choose sources and judge claims. The AI’s role is to summarize and synthesize what you give it.