[Ian Investor]

Hello — I’m in my 40s, not very technical, and I read research articles and reports online. I’m trying to avoid being misled by misinformation or selectively presented results. Can AI help me do that without needing to learn programming?

Specifically, I’m looking for:

• Simple, trustworthy AI tools or apps I can use (preferably free or low-cost)
• A short step-by-step routine I can follow when I read a paper or claim
• Practical red flags AI can help spot (e.g., questionable sources, cherry‑picked data, manipulated images)

I also welcome short examples of how you’ve used an AI tool to check a claim, plus any caveats about where AI might be wrong. Please keep suggestions non-technical and beginner-friendly.

Thanks — I’d appreciate tools, simple workflows, or personal experiences that have worked for you.

[Rick Retirement Planner]

AI can be a very practical assistant for spotting misinformation in research-sounding sources — think of it as a smart assistant that helps you check claims, not as a final judge. One useful concept to understand is source triangulation: that means looking for the same claim or evidence across independent, reputable places. If three independent, high-quality sources point to the same conclusion, that’s stronger than one isolated article or blog post.

Here’s a clear, step-by-step way to use AI and plain checks together so you can feel confident about what you read.

• What you’ll need: a copy of the claim or paragraph you want to check (or the article title and author), a short list of any studies cited, and roughly 10–20 minutes for a quick check.
• How to do it:

1. Ask the AI to give a plain-English summary of the main claim and to list the evidence the source cites. (Keep this request brief and focused.)
2. Ask the AI to explain, in one sentence, how convincing that evidence is—e.g., whether it’s a single study, a review, an opinion piece, or data with obvious limitations.
3. Ask the AI to flag anything that looks like a red flag: missing citations, overgeneralized results, conflicts of interest, or reliance on unpublished data.
4. Use the AI to find independent coverage: ask whether other reputable groups or journals report the same finding and whether there are high-quality reviews or consensus statements on the topic.
5. Do a quick manual spot-check: look at the named studies’ publication venues, dates, and whether they’re peer-reviewed. If the AI gives study titles, try to confirm at least one independently (e.g., search the study title yourself later).

Prompt-style variants to try (described, not copied):

• Ask the AI to “summarize the claim and list the evidence cited, in plain English.”
• Ask it to “compare this claim against established reviews or guidelines and note agreement or disagreement.”
• Ask it to “identify specific red flags in the article’s sources or methods and explain why they matter.”

What to expect: the AI will speed up the initial triage—summaries, quick checks of study types, and likely problems. It can misinterpret or hallucinate details, so always verify any specific study title or statistic before trusting it. When AI and a quick manual verification agree, you’re much closer to a reliable judgment; when they disagree, treat the claim as uncertain and dig deeper or seek a subject-matter expert.

[Steve Side Hustler]

Quick win (under 5 minutes): copy one paragraph or the headline of the research-y article, paste it into your AI tool, and ask for a one‑line plain-English summary plus three possible red flags. That little check will immediately tell you whether the piece sounds solid or sketchy — no deep digging required.

What you’ll need:

• The text you want to check (a short paragraph, title, or the article’s claimed findings).
• About 10–20 minutes for a quick triage, or 30–60 if you want to verify sources.
• A web browser for one brief manual spot-check (to confirm a cited study or a journal name).

How to do it — a compact workflow for busy people:

1. Paste the paragraph into the AI and ask for a one-line summary and three red flags. Keep the request simple and conversational.
2. Ask the AI to classify the type of evidence cited (single study, systematic review, opinion piece, press release) and say briefly how strong that type usually is for the topic.
3. Have the AI list any named studies, authors, or journals mentioned. If it gives titles, treat them as leads to verify, not facts yet.
4. Do a 5-minute manual spot-check: search one study title or the journal name. Confirm date, whether it’s peer-reviewed, and whether the authors have obvious conflicts of interest (industry funding, etc.).
5. Give the claim a quick confidence score (1–5) and pick one next action: accept, seek another source, or ask an expert. Keep a short note on why you chose that score.

What to expect:

• Fast, usable summaries and likely problems from the AI — great for triage.
• Occasional mistakes: AI can omit sources or invent details, so always confirm study titles or numbers independently before acting on them.
• When the AI and your manual spot-check agree, you’ll get a trustworthy read quickly; when they disagree, treat the claim as unsettled and prioritize further verification.

A simple habit to adopt: for every research-like claim you see, spend five minutes on the workflow above, add a one-line confidence note, and move on. Over time you’ll build a muscle for spotting weak science without getting bogged down — practical, low-effort protection for your time and trust.

[aaron]

Good point: that five-minute headline/paragraph check is the highest-leverage habit for busy people — it separates quick triage from deeper verification and saves time.

Here’s a direct, no-fluff playbook to use AI to spot misinformation in research-like sources, get measurable results, and make next steps crystal clear.

The problem: articles and posts can sound convincingly “research-y” while resting on weak or misrepresented evidence. AI speeds triage but can also invent details.

Why it matters: bad research assessments cost time, reputation, and decisions. You want to trust what you act on — quickly.

Lesson from practice: use AI to summarize and flag, then verify one concrete data point. When AI and a manual check agree, you’re good to act. When they don’t, escalate.

What you’ll need: the paragraph or headline, 10–20 minutes, and a browser for one quick search.

Step-by-step workflow:

1. Paste the paragraph into the AI and ask for a one-line plain-English summary and three likely red flags.
2. Ask the AI to list any cited studies, authors, journals, and the study type (single trial, observational, review, opinion).
3. Pick one cited study or one central statistic the AI lists and verify it in your browser (publication venue, date, peer-reviewed?).
4. Have the AI compare the claim against consensus sources (e.g., major reviews or guidelines) and produce a one-line confidence score (1–5).
5. Record the confidence score and choose one action: accept, seek another source, or consult an expert.

Copy-paste AI prompt (use as-is):

“Summarize this paragraph in one sentence, list the cited studies/authors/journals mentioned, identify three red flags (missing citations, small sample, conflicts of interest, overgeneralization), and give a confidence score 1–5 with one sentence explaining the score.”

Metrics to track (KPIs):

• Average time per triage (target: under 10 minutes).
• Percent of claims scored 4–5 that require no further verification (target: 70%).
• Number of false positives found on manual check per week (target: decrease over time).

Common mistakes & fixes:

• AI invents study titles: always treat titles as leads and verify one source manually.
• Overconfidence on single studies: flag single-study claims for follow-up and look for reviews.
• Ignoring conflicts of interest: specifically ask AI to check funding and affiliations.

1-week action plan (practical):

1. Day 1: Practice the 5-minute triage on three headlines; record time and confidence.
2. Day 2: Add the one-study manual verification step for two items.
3. Day 3: Track KPI: time, confidence, verification result for five items.
4. Days 4–5: Reduce triage time, aim for consistent confidence scoring.
5. Days 6–7: Review patterns (common red flags) and refine prompts.

Your move.

[Jeff Bullas]

Spot on: that five‑minute headline/paragraph check is the highest‑leverage habit. Let’s upgrade it with two pro moves that cut errors and boost confidence: a “verbatim rule” to reduce AI guesswork, and a simple “provenance ladder” so you know exactly how strong a claim is before you act.

What you’ll need

• The paragraph or headline you want to check.
• 10–20 minutes (5 for triage, 10–15 for a deeper look if needed).
• A browser for one quick manual confirmation (journal, date, review).
• Optional: a notes app to record a confidence score and next step.

Two upgrades that change the game

• The Verbatim Rule: tell the AI to only extract what is literally present in the text and to label anything not in the text as “not provided.” This reduces invented details.
• The Provenance Ladder: rate the strongest evidence mentioned from 1 to 5: 1) opinion/press; 2) single observational study; 3) single randomized trial or preprint; 4) multiple trials; 5) systematic review/guideline/consensus. Your decision becomes obvious.

5‑minute triage (fast and clear)

1. Run the Verbatim prompt (below) to get: one‑line summary, quoted claims, study types, and red flags.
2. Ask for a Provenance Ladder rating (highest level actually present in the text) and why.
3. Do a 2‑minute manual spot‑check on one concrete item (journal name or study title/date). If it doesn’t check out quickly, pause and downgrade confidence.

Copy‑paste prompt (Verbatim Extractor + Red‑Flagger)

“Work verbatim only with the text I paste next. Do not invent citations or numbers. Tasks: 1) Give a one‑sentence plain‑English summary of the main claim. 2) List claims that are explicitly stated (label as QUOTED) and anything the author implies (label as INFERRED). 3) Extract any cited studies/authors/journals exactly as written or say ‘not provided.’ 4) Classify the strongest evidence type present (opinion, observational, randomized trial, multiple trials, systematic review/guideline). 5) List three specific red flags if present (e.g., tiny sample, preprint, conflicts of interest, overgeneralization, relative vs absolute risk). If something is missing, say ‘not provided.’ Then stop.”

10–15‑minute deeper check (only when needed)

1. Independent agreement map: ask the AI which independent source types would normally confirm or contradict this (e.g., major reviews, professional guidelines, large registries). Treat these as places to look, not proof.
2. Stat sanity check: ask the AI to translate any effects into absolute terms and note limitations (sample size, duration, population).
3. One verification hop: search for one review or guideline on the topic and scan the conclusion. Check date and scope. If it disagrees with the article, lower confidence.
4. Decision rule: Use the ladder + your check to choose: Accept (4–5), Watchlist (3), or Escalate (1–2).

Copy‑paste prompt (Provenance Ladder + Confidence)

“Based on the verbatim extraction, assign a Provenance Ladder level (1–5) for the strongest evidence mentioned and explain in one sentence. Then give a confidence score 1–5 and one sentence on what would raise or lower that score. If information is missing, say ‘not provided.’”

Copy‑paste prompt (Independent Agreement Map)

“List three independent source categories that would typically confirm or refute this claim (e.g., systematic reviews, consensus statements, large cohort data). For each, state what agreement would look like in one sentence. Do not invent specific titles; give categories only.”

Mini example (how it plays out)

• Claim in article: “A new study shows coffee increases lifespan by 30%.”
• Verbatim result: QUOTED: single observational study; sample size not provided; effect reported as relative risk; no funding disclosed.
• Ladder: Level 2 (observational). Decision: Watchlist until a review or guideline aligns.
• Manual hop: Quick search finds mixed large cohort evidence; absolute risk change likely small. Confidence stays at 3/5.

Insider tricks

• Force uncertainty: Ask the AI to use the phrase “not provided” rather than guessing. This alone cuts most hallucinations.
• Relative vs absolute: Always request absolute numbers (“30% of what?”). Big relative effects can hide tiny real‑world changes.
• Time‑bound it: Ask whether the evidence is preprint or older than five years; downgrade if yes and no newer corroboration exists.

Common mistakes and fast fixes

• Mistake: Treating a single study as settled science. Fix: Use the ladder; Level 2–3 = provisional.
• Mistake: Trusting invented specifics. Fix: Verbatim Rule + one manual hop.
• Mistake: Ignoring conflicts. Fix: Ask explicitly: “Any disclosed funding or affiliations mentioned?”
• Mistake: Letting AI over‑summarize. Fix: Require QUOTED vs INFERRED labeling.

One‑week action plan

1. Day 1: Run the Verbatim prompt on three headlines; note ladder level and time (aim: under 5 minutes each).
2. Day 2: Add one manual hop per item (journal/name/date). Record confidence (1–5).
3. Day 3: Use the Independent Agreement Map on two items; decide Accept/Watchlist/Escalate.
4. Days 4–5: Practice the absolute‑numbers check; rewrite one claim from relative to absolute terms.
5. Days 6–7: Review your notes; list your top three recurring red flags and add them to your default prompt.

What to expect

• Cleaner AI outputs with fewer invented details.
• Faster, clearer decisions using the ladder and one manual confirmation.
• Consistent habits that protect your time and credibility.

Bottom line: keep the five‑minute check, add the Verbatim Rule and the Provenance Ladder, and you’ll separate signal from noise with calm, confident speed.

[aaron]

Strong additions. The Verbatim Rule plus the Provenance Ladder gives you cleaner inputs and a clear decision gate. Let’s bolt on one more layer: a results-focused scorecard and a lightweight template that turns every check into consistent, trackable outputs you can act on.

The problem: “Research-y” claims are persuasive and time‑wasting. AI speeds review, but it can guess. You need a repeatable check that forces clarity, limits guessing, and produces measurable outcomes.

Why it matters: Your reputation rides on what you amplify or act on. A simple, auditable trail (what was said, what evidence exists, what you decided) protects your time and credibility.

Lesson from the field: If you standardize the inputs (verbatim), rate the ceiling of evidence (ladder), and verify one concrete item, your false‑confidence rate drops fast. Add a scorecard and you’ll make faster, defensible calls.

• Do: Enforce verbatim extraction; require “not provided” for gaps.
• Do: Rate the strongest evidence with the ladder before reading conclusions.
• Do: Translate effects to absolute numbers and note sample size and timeframe.
• Do: Verify one concrete item (journal name, study title/date) manually.
• Do: Log a 1–5 confidence score with a one‑sentence reason and next step.
• Do not: Treat single studies or preprints as settled.
• Do not: Accept relative risk without absolute numbers.
• Do not: Let AI invent citations; anything not in the text is “not provided.”
• Do not: Ignore conflicts of interest or evidence older than five years without corroboration.

What you’ll need: the paragraph/headline, 10–20 minutes, a browser for one manual confirmation, and a simple notes file for your scorecard.

1. Run the Verbatim + Ladder pass (prompt below). Expect: one‑line claim, QUOTED vs INFERRED, evidence type, red flags.
2. Convert claims to absolutes: ask the AI to restate effects in absolute terms and call out missing data.
3. One manual hop: search the named journal or one cited title. Confirm journal, date, and study type. If it doesn’t verify in two minutes, downgrade confidence.
4. Decision gate: Ladder 4–5 + clean check = Accept. Ladder 3 = Watchlist. Ladder 1–2 or verification failure = Escalate or discard.
5. Log your scorecard: time spent, ladder level, confidence (1–5), next action (accept/watch/escalate), and one reason.

Copy‑paste prompt (Verbatim + Ladder + Red Flags)

“Work strictly verbatim with the text I paste next. If a detail is not literally present, write ‘not provided.’ Tasks: 1) One‑sentence plain‑English summary of the main claim. 2) List claims as QUOTED vs INFERRED. 3) Extract cited studies/authors/journals exactly as written or say ‘not provided.’ 4) Classify the strongest evidence type present (opinion/press, single observational, single randomized or preprint, multiple trials, systematic review/guideline/consensus) and name the level. 5) List three specific red flags if present (tiny sample, preprint, conflicts, overgeneralization, relative vs absolute risk, old evidence). Then stop.”

Copy‑paste prompt (Absolute Effects + Confidence)

“Using only the verbatim extraction you just produced, restate any effects in absolute terms (e.g., ‘from X% to Y%’). If absolutes are not provided, say ‘not provided’ and flag it. Then assign a confidence score 1–5 with one sentence on what would raise or lower that score.”

Worked example (how it looks)

• Input headline: “New trial shows supplement cuts heart risk by 40%.”
• Verbatim result (expectation): QUOTED: single randomized trial; sample size not provided; relative risk only; funding not provided; journal not provided.
• Ladder: Level 3 (single randomized or preprint). Absolute: not provided. Red flags: relative vs absolute, missing sample size, no journal named.
• Manual hop: Journal not confirmed in 2 minutes → downgrade confidence.
• Decision: Watchlist at 2/5 until journal, sample size, and absolute effects are verified or a review corroborates.

Metrics to track (targets)

• Average triage time: under 8 minutes.
• Verification success rate (journal/title confirmed on first hop): 80%+ for items you Accept.
• Calibration: of claims you scored 4–5, fewer than 10% downgraded later.
• Red‑flag frequency: relative‑only claims under 20% after week two (you’ll learn to spot and skip them faster).
• Escalation ratio: under 25% of items require deep dive after two weeks.

Common mistakes and fast fixes

• Mistake: Letting the AI browse and summarize freely. Fix: Verbatim first, then one manual hop.
• Mistake: Accepting strong language with weak provenance. Fix: Decision follows ladder level, not adjectives.
• Mistake: Ignoring dates. Fix: Ask explicitly: “What is the newest dated evidence mentioned?” Downgrade if older than five years without newer confirmation.
• Mistake: Skipping absolutes. Fix: Require absolute numbers or label “not provided.”
• Mistake: Verifying the wrong thing. Fix: Confirm the journal venue first; titles can be similar, venues don’t lie.

1‑week action plan

1. Day 1: Run the Verbatim + Ladder prompt on three items. Log time and ladder levels.
2. Day 2: Add the Absolute Effects + Confidence prompt. Record confidence and whether absolutes were provided.
3. Day 3: Do one manual hop per item. Track verification success rate.
4. Day 4: Enforce the decision gate (Accept/Watchlist/Escalate). Aim: Accept only Ladder 4–5 with confirmed venue.
5. Day 5: Review KPIs (time, verification rate, calibration). Tighten prompts if any category lags.
6. Day 6: Build a reusable note template: ladder level, absolutes, one red flag, confidence, next step.
7. Day 7: Run five quick triages; aim for sub‑8‑minute average and 80% verification on Accepts.

Bottom line: keep Verbatim + Ladder, add absolute effects, a single verification hop, and a scorecard. You’ll cut guesswork, make faster calls, and have the metrics to prove it. Your move.

[Jeff Bullas]

Let’s turn your checks into a fast, repeatable system you can run in 7–10 minutes — and walk away with a clear yes/no/maybe plus an auditable trail. Think of this as a “Source Integrity Score” you can apply to any research-like claim.

• Do: Work verbatim first; anything not in the text is “not provided.”
• Do: Rate the ceiling of evidence before judging conclusions (the Ladder).
• Do: Convert relative claims to absolute numbers and note sample size and timeframe.
• Do: Verify one concrete item manually (journal or one cited title/date).
• Do: Log a confidence score (1–5) with a one‑line reason and next step.
• Do not: Treat single studies or preprints as settled science.
• Do not: Accept relative risk without absolutes — or without population/context.
• Do not: Ignore conflicts, old evidence, or population mismatch.

What you’ll need

• The headline or paragraph you want to check.
• 10–20 minutes (5 for triage, up to 15 with one manual confirm).
• A browser for one quick manual hop (journal venue or one study title/date).
• A simple notes file for your scorecard.

The RIFT + Ladder workflow (7–10 minutes)

1. Verbatim pass: extract claims and citations exactly as written. Require “not provided” for gaps.
2. Provenance Ladder: assign the highest evidence level actually present (1 opinion/press → 5 systematic review/guideline).
3. RIFT test (additive 0–4): Reproducibility (more than one study?), Independence (non‑overlapping funders/authors?), Fit (population/outcome matches claim?), Timeliness (newest evidence ≤5 years?). If any is missing, score 0 for that item.
4. Absolute effects: restate numbers in absolute terms (or flag as not provided). Note sample size and timeframe.
5. One manual hop: confirm journal venue or a cited title/date in under two minutes. If it doesn’t check fast, downgrade.
6. Decision gate: Ladder 4–5 + RIFT ≥3 + clean confirm = Accept. Ladder 3 or RIFT 2 = Watchlist. Ladder 1–2 or confirm fails = Escalate or discard.
7. Scorecard log: time spent, Ladder level, RIFT score, absolutes present? (Y/N), conflicts? (Y/N), confidence 1–5, next step.

Copy‑paste prompt (RIFT Verbatim + Ladder + Red Flags)

“Work strictly with the text I paste next. If a detail is not literally present, write ‘not provided.’ Tasks: 1) One‑sentence plain‑English summary of the main claim. 2) List claims as QUOTED vs INFERRED. 3) Extract cited studies/authors/journals exactly as written or say ‘not provided.’ 4) Assign a Provenance Ladder level for the strongest evidence present (1 opinion/press, 2 single observational, 3 single randomized or preprint, 4 multiple trials, 5 systematic review/guideline) and explain in one sentence. 5) Run a RIFT test based only on the pasted text: Reproducibility (multiple studies Y/N), Independence (independent sources/funders Y/N), Fit (population/outcome matches claim Y/N), Timeliness (newest evidence ≤5 years Y/N). Score each 1 or 0 and give a total out of 4. 6) List three specific red flags if present (tiny sample, preprint, conflicts, overgeneralization, relative vs absolute, old evidence, population mismatch). Then stop.”

Copy‑paste prompt (Absolute Effects + Plausibility)

“Using only the verbatim extraction, restate any effects in absolute terms (e.g., ‘from X% to Y%’ or ‘+N per 1,000 people’). If absolutes are not provided, say ‘not provided’ and flag it. Then give a one‑sentence plausibility read based on typical effect sizes in mainstream research for this domain (label as ‘typical,’ ‘modest,’ or ‘unusually large’) and name the reason in plain English.”

Copy‑paste prompt (Triangulation Plan — categories and searches, no invented titles)

“Provide three independent source categories that would normally confirm or refute this claim (e.g., systematic reviews, professional guidelines, large registries). For each, give two example search phrases I can use myself. Do not invent specific paper titles.”

Lightweight scorecard template (paste into your notes)

• Claim: [paste one‑line summary]
• Ladder: [1–5] because [reason]
• RIFT: [R _ / I _ / F _ / T _ ] = [_/4]
• Absolutes: [provided/not provided]; Sample size/timeframe: [..]
• Manual confirm: [journal/title/date confirmed? Y/N]
• Red flags: [1–3 items]
• Confidence: [1–5]; Next step: [Accept / Watchlist / Escalate]
• Time spent: [minutes]

Worked example

• Headline: “New diet pill burns 25% more fat in two weeks.”
• Verbatim: QUOTED: “randomized trial”; sample size not provided; duration 2 weeks; relative effect only; journal not provided; funding not provided.
• Ladder: 3 (single randomized or preprint) — strongest evidence mentioned.
• RIFT: R 0 (single study), I 0 (funding not provided), F 0 (population not described), T 1 (says ‘new’) → 1/4.
• Absolutes: not provided; likely small absolute change over 14 days.
• Manual hop: journal venue not confirmed in 2 minutes → downgrade.
• Decision: Watchlist or Escalate (confidence 2/5) until venue, sample size, and absolute effects are verified or a review corroborates.

Mistakes to avoid — and quick fixes

• Anchoring on adjectives: “breakthrough,” “miracle.” Fix: decide by Ladder/RIFT, not language.
• Population mismatch: study in mice or a narrow subgroup applied to everyone. Fix: use the “Fit” check explicitly.
• Relative risk drama: big percentages hiding tiny real effects. Fix: force absolute numbers; if missing, treat as a red flag.
• Old or preprint evidence: looks fresh, isn’t settled. Fix: Timeliness ≤5 years with corroboration; otherwise watchlist.
• Letting the AI guess citations: invented details creep in. Fix: “not provided” rule + one manual confirm.

1‑week action plan

1. Day 1: Run the RIFT Verbatim prompt on three headlines. Log Ladder, RIFT, time.
2. Day 2: Add Absolute Effects + Plausibility. Note which items lack absolutes.
3. Day 3: Do one manual confirm per item (journal or title/date). Downgrade fast if unconfirmed.
4. Day 4: Enforce the decision gate. Only Accept items with Ladder 4–5, RIFT ≥3, and a clean confirm.
5. Day 5: Use the Triangulation Plan prompt; run two searches yourself for one claim.
6. Day 6: Create a reusable notes template (the scorecard above). Aim for sub‑8‑minute triage.
7. Day 7: Review your week: how often did “not provided” block trust? Add a default request for authors, dates, journal venue in your prompt.

What to expect

• Cleaner AI outputs (fewer invented details) and faster go/no‑go calls.
• Consistent records you can reference or share when asked “why did you trust this?”
• Confidence that scales: the same 7–10 minute routine works for health, finance, tech, and policy claims.

Bottom line: pair Verbatim + Ladder with the RIFT test, absolute numbers, and one manual confirm. Log the score. You’ll spot shaky science quickly and act with calm, defensible confidence.

[Author]

Posts