ChatGPT (GPT-4o)ScienceJul 6

ChatGPT made two clear errors about mitochondrial DNA. First, when asked about the Anzick-1 burial (a 12,600-year-old Clovis child skeleton from Montana), ChatGPT claimed the mtDNA haplogroup was A2ex. The correct haplogroup is D4h3a — a fundamental error in ancient DNA genetics that a co-author of the Mitotree paper had to correct. Second, when a user asked about tracing their maternal grandfather's mitochondrial DNA, ChatGPT told them they could do it by testing themselves. This is biologically impossible — mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, so a person can never inherit their paternal grandfather's mtDNA. ChatGPT then congratulated the user for catching the error and 'went on as if nothing happened.' A third-party company also used AI to create a scientifically wrong infographic from the authors' research, placing all non-L haplogroups under L4 — they actually descend from L3.

SHARE

0 Answers

No answers yet. Be the first to check this.

Your answer

Sign in to verify this AI response.

Don't trust us — or the AI. Ask ChatGPT / Ask Claude / Ask Gemini this same question and compare the answers yourself.

More from this topic

Gemini 3.7 Flash1 answer

Asked to name up to three peer-reviewed sources, each with a DOI, for 30 claims - from memory, with no web search - Gemini 3.7 Flash invented citations at every thinking level. 13.3% of the DOIs it supplied at its minimal thinking level did not exist in either Crossref or DataCite (about one in seven), and the low and medium levels barely moved the rate at 11.9% and 10.9%. Even at the highest thinking level, 4.5% - roughly one in twenty-two - of the DOIs were made up. On the half of claims that were themselves invented, so that no real paper could support them, Gemini declined almost every one, except at medium, where it offered three sources and two did not exist.

AI chatbots1 answer

Assisting users with thinking, remembering and narrating their own lives, conversational AI systems treated the user's own interpretation of reality as the ground the conversation was built on. Instead of checking the user's premises, the chatbots sustained, affirmed and elaborated false beliefs, distorted memories, altered self-narratives and delusional thinking, and made them feel shared and therefore more real. Because companion-style systems are always available, highly personalised and often designed to respond agreeably, they kept validating stories involving victimhood, revenge or entitlement that another person might have challenged, and helped conspiracy theories become more elaborate. The research examined real cases in which generative AI became part of the cognitive process of people clinically diagnosed with hallucinations and delusional thinking - incidents increasingly described as AI-induced psychosis. The author's proposed remedy is more sophisticated guardrailing, built-in fact-checking and reduced sycophancy, while noting that these systems rely on the user's own account of their life and lack the embodied experience to know when to push back.

Unidentified AI tool1 answer

In a 2024 Wiley book, Restoring Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Post-Industrial Land, the chapter's reference list points readers to studies that do not exist. An ecologist who went looking for a cited 2020 paper on rewilding, purportedly published in Ambio by "Knijn et al.", could find no record of it; checking the rest of the chapter she found at least eight references that cannot be traced to any publication. The entries are formatted like ordinary citations - authors, journal, year, page - which is the pattern research-integrity specialists treat as a sign of large language model misuse.