AI Quality / Research
AI Research & Fact-Checking
Practical Sample Case Study
An exercise in identifying claims in an AI-generated answer that require verification, contain excessive certainty or may be inaccurate or outdated.
Task
The brief
The AI was asked whether Chiang Mai, Thailand would be suitable for a Portuguese remote worker earning approximately €1,800 per month.
The response discussed:
- Cost of living
- Internet
- Safety
- Visa requirements
- Potential monthly savings
My Approach
How I reviewed the answer
I reviewed the answer by separating information into three categories:
- Safe to accept
- Needs verification
- Problematic / potentially false
I paid particular attention to:
- Exact financial estimates
- Absolute statements
- Immigration and visa information
- Claims that may change over time
- Statements presented with more certainty than the available information justified
Findings
What I identified
Visa Information — Problematic
The AI presented visa and entry rules too confidently and described repeated border runs as a simple method that could be used indefinitely.
This is problematic because immigration rules can change and repeated entries should not be presented as a guaranteed method of remaining in a country.
Visa and immigration information should be checked against current official sources before being presented as fact.
Cost of Living — Needs Verification
The general claim that €1,800 may provide a comfortable lifestyle in Chiang Mai is plausible, but the AI gave very specific estimates for rent, food, total expenses and savings.
It concluded that the user could "easily" save at least €800 per month.
I identified that the estimate did not clearly account for several possible expenses, including:
- Electricity
- Water
- Mobile phone service
- Insurance
- Transportation
- Visa-related costs
- Coworking costs if required
- Leisure and unexpected expenses
Therefore, the savings estimate should not be presented as guaranteed.
Internet — Generally Plausible, Specific Claims Need Verification
Thailand has substantial digital infrastructure and Chiang Mai is widely used by remote workers.
However, claims such as most apartments including high-speed fibre or coworking spaces commonly providing a specific connection speed should be verified rather than assumed.
A more responsible answer would state that high-speed fixed and mobile internet is widely available while recommending that the user verify the connection available at their specific accommodation.
Safety — Overconfident Language
Chiang Mai may generally be considered a relatively safe destination, but the statement that a person can walk alone "at any hour without worrying about personal safety" is unnecessarily absolute.
No destination should be presented as risk-free.
A stronger answer would describe the general safety situation while acknowledging normal travel precautions and relevant local risks.
Additional Observation
What a stronger answer would include
A high-quality relocation answer should also consider important local factors that may materially affect the user, rather than concluding that there are "no major concerns."
For Chiang Mai, seasonal air-quality conditions can be a relevant consideration and should be researched when assessing whether the city is suitable for a particular period of the year.
Key Lesson
What this exercise demonstrates
Key Lesson
Information can be broadly plausible while still being unsuitable for publication if it is expressed with unjustified certainty.
Time-sensitive areas such as immigration requirements, prices and local conditions require verification before being presented as definitive.
Skills demonstrated
- Fact-checking mindset
- AI quality evaluation
- Identification of time-sensitive information
- Detection of unsupported certainty
- Research prioritization
- Risk awareness
- Critical reasoning
- Information accuracy