<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Trust on AI Science Report</title>
    <link>https://aiscience.uk/tags/trust/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Trust on AI Science Report</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0800</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://aiscience.uk/tags/trust/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Citations Make AI Hallucinate More, Not Less — A Major New Study</title>
      <link>https://aiscience.uk/posts/citations-increase-ai-hallucination-authoritybench/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0800</pubDate>
      <guid>https://aiscience.uk/posts/citations-increase-ai-hallucination-authoritybench/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;You&amp;rsquo;d think that adding a citation to an AI&amp;rsquo;s answer would make it more trustworthy. A link to a scientific paper. A reference to a legal precedent. A footnote pointing to a medical journal. Surely the AI has checked its sources, right?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Wrong. A landmark new study accepted at ICML 2026 — one of the world&amp;rsquo;s most prestigious AI conferences — reveals something deeply counterintuitive: &lt;strong&gt;citations make large language models more likely to hallucinate, not less.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
