AI chatbots got election information wrong 90% of the time in a new study — including ChatGPT rivals
A recent study revealed that major AI chatbots, including ChatGPT, frequently provide incorrect election information. The research found that these systems made errors 90% of the time when asked about election-related topics. This raises concerns about the reliability of AI as a source of information during critical democratic processes.
- ▪The study conducted by NewsBench found that AI chatbots struggle with sourcing and political accuracy.
- ▪Researchers noted that over 70% of mistakes were due to retrieval failures rather than reasoning issues.
- ▪Despite sounding confident, AI chatbots often present flawed information, which can mislead users.
TechRadar publishes from United Kingdom and files mainly under tech. We currently carry 1,334 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | TechRadar |
| Canonical URL | https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/ai-chatbots-got-election-information-wrong-90-percent-of-the-time-in-a-new-study-including-chatgpt-rivals |
| Publication time | Fri, 22 May 2026 22:00:00 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-05-22T22:07:02.995Z |
| Last seen | 2026-05-22T22:07:02.995Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | dOcK8sFcKQWE |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
AI Platforms & Assistants AI chatbots got election information wrong 90% of the time in a new study — including ChatGPT rivals News By Eric Hal Schwartz published 22 May 2026 Major AI chatbots delivering incorrect election information is a problem, as millions increasingly turn to AI for news and political facts When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works. (Image credit: Getty Images / PAUL VERNON) Copy link Facebook X Whatsapp Reddit Pinterest Flipboard Threads Email Share this article 0 Join the conversation Follow us Add us as a preferred source on Google Newsletter Subscribe to our newsletter New research found that major AI chatbots frequently gave incorrect election informationResearchers say systems like ChatGPT, Gemini,…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at TechRadar.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from TechRadar
