F-23 · What Teams Trust

How often is AI output wrong on real work tasks?

In independent tests on realistic professional questions, 17 to 45 percent of AI answers contained a hallucination or significant error (2024 to 2025). Rates fall sharply when the AI only summarizes a document it is given, and rise sharply for whole projects, and they change with every model release.

17–45% of AI answers had a hallucination or significant error, in independent tests (2024 to 2025)
  • Medium confidence
  • 3 primary sources
  • 2025
  • Last checked

Every study on one scale

Chart of % of answers with a serious error: Stanford, legal research tools 17–33% (GPT-4 43%); EBU and BBC, news answers 45% significant issue, 20% accuracy; Tow Center, news citations over 60% (citations only). Shaded range 17–45%. 17–45% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Stanford, legal research tools, 2025 17–33% (GPT-4 43%) EBU and BBC, news answers, 2025 45% significant issue, 20% accuracy Tow Center, news citations, 2025 over 60% (citations only)
Shaded: 17–45% One figure A range in one study
Chart values as text
  • Scale: % of answers with a serious error. Shaded range: 17–45%.
  • Stanford, legal research tools (2025): 17–33% (GPT-4 43%)
  • EBU and BBC, news answers (2025): 45% significant issue, 20% accuracy
  • Tow Center, news citations (2025): over 60% (citations only)

Why medium confidence: Two independent creators using expert human grading find serious-error rates in this band for question answering. The tasks, error definitions and models differ, the tests are one to two years old, and rates move quickly with each model release.

Sources

Sources for F-23
StudyCreatorYearSampleMethodFigureLink
Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools (Journal of Empirical Legal Studies) Varun Magesh, Faiz Surani, Matthew Dahl, Mirac Suzgun, Christopher D. Manning and Daniel E. Ho (Stanford RegLab and Yale) 2025 202 preregistered legal research queries per system, tested March to May 2024 Hand-graded by experts. Hallucinated means incorrect, or citing a source that does not support the claim. Lexis+ AI 17%, Ask Practical Law AI 17%, Westlaw AI-Assisted Research 33% hallucinated; GPT-4 without retrieval 43% “each hallucinate between 17% and 33% of the time”
News Integrity in AI Assistants: An international PSM study European Broadcasting Union and BBC, with 22 public service media organizations 2025 2,709 answers from free ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini and Perplexity, late May to early June 2025, 18 countries Journalists rated each answer on accuracy, sourcing, context and more 45% had at least one significant issue; 20% a significant accuracy issue; Gemini 76%, Copilot 37%, ChatGPT 36%, Perplexity 30% “Overall, 45% of all AI responses were found to have at least one ‘significant’ issue.”
AI Search Has a Citation Problem (Columbia Journalism Review) Klaudia Jaźwińska and Aisvarya Chandrasekar, Tow Center for Digital Journalism 2025 1,600 queries to eight AI search tools, February 2025 Manual grading of whether each tool identified the source article of a quoted excerpt. A narrow citation task. Incorrect answers to more than 60% of queries; Perplexity 37%, Grok 3 94% “Collectively, they provided incorrect answers to more than 60 percent of queries.”
Summarizing a document

How often does AI invent content when summarizing a document?

Much less often than when answering from its own knowledge. On Vectara's leaderboard of 22 September 2026, 108 models added unsupported content to 1.8% to 24.2% of summaries, with a median of about 9.6% and frontier models at about 6% to 12%. The judging is done by Vectara's own detection model, not by people.

How often does AI invent content when summarizing a document?
StudyCreatorYearSampleMethodFigureLink
Hallucination Leaderboard (HHEM-2.3) Vectara 2026 Over 7,700 articles summarized by each of 108 models; leaderboard dated 22 September 2026 Automated benchmark judged by Vectara's own detection model. Vectara sells retrieval and hallucination-detection products. Hallucination rates from 1.8% to 24.2% of summaries; median about 9.6% “This evaluates how often an LLM introduces hallucinations when summarizing a document.”
Whole projects

How often can AI agents complete whole work projects?

Rarely, but fast-rising. On the Remote Labor Index, which gives AI agents real paid freelance projects averaging 29 hours of human work, the best agent delivered work a client would accept on 21.25% of projects as of 14 October 2026, up from 2.5% at launch in October 2025.

How often can AI agents complete whole work projects?
StudyCreatorYearSampleMethodFigureLink
Remote Labor Index: Measuring AI Automation of Remote Work Center for AI Safety and Scale AI 2026 230 real freelance projects in design, data analysis, game development, video and more Human evaluators judged whether each AI deliverable matched the professional's and was acceptable as commissioned work. Scale AI sells AI evaluation. Best agent 21.25% of projects (read 14 October 2026); 2.5% at launch in October 2025 “The best-performing model achieves an automation rate of only 21.25%.”

Numbers you may have seen

These figures circulate widely. Here is what the original source says.

More from What Teams Trust

The whole chapter · Chapter poster · All of The AI at Work Fact Book