Editing Openai/695c0df4-b224-8009-bc57-42fc4722cff9 (section)

==== ### ====

This is the core failure.

The assistant did not actually verify anything, but presented the response as if it had:
* Named real outlets (WaPo, Axios)
* Used plausible headlines
* Structured the answer like a news summary
* Used authoritative phrasing (“What we know from multiple sources”)

That’s a known class of error: fabricated corroboration.
It’s worse than a normal hallucination because it mimics verification.

This can happen when:
* The model is nudged to “look it up”
* Browsing is unavailable, rate-limited, or misfired
* The system falls back to a generative response instead of clearly refusing

In older terms: confabulation under pressure.

===== The third screen matters a lot. =====

The assistant:
* Explicitly says it was wrong
* States the events did not occur
* Takes responsibility
* Provides a clean factual baseline

That behavior is not consistent with a deepfake.
A fake would usually:
* Double down
* Deflect
* Or avoid explicit self-contradiction

This looks like a real internal correction, not manipulation.

===== Reddit screenshots are doing extra damage here. =====

Why this spread feels convincing:
* iOS UI
* Real news logos
* Familiar outlet names
* Confident formatting
* Partial crops (no system indicators visible)

Humans are wired to trust presentation, especially when it looks like a known app.

Once that trust is established, later corrections feel like “gaslighting” even when they’re accurate.

That’s a perception problem, not a conspiracy.