I keep noticing something, and it bothers me more than it probably should. Friends of mine, genuinely intelligent people, sharp in conversation, good at their jobs, will repost something on social media that falls apart under thirty seconds of scrutiny. Not stupid people. Not careless people in any other part of their lives. Just people who did not stop to check before they hit share.
I used to think this was a new problem, something AI introduced. It is not. The data says this failure was already systemic years before a single chatbot existed, and once I looked into it, the numbers were worse than I expected.
The data was already damning before AI showed up
In 2016, researchers from Columbia University and the French National Institute tracked 2.8 million shares of five major news outlets on Twitter over the course of a month. They found that 59 percent of links shared on social media were never clicked. Not skimmed. Not speed-read. Never opened. The majority of people sharing an article had not read a single word of it beyond the headline. One of the study’s authors put it simply: people form an opinion based on a summary of a summary, without making the effort to go deeper.
Two years later, MIT researchers published the largest longitudinal study of false news ever conducted, in the journal Science. They tracked 126,000 story cascades and roughly 3 million people on Twitter across more than a decade. False news was 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than true news, and it reached its first 1,500 people about six times faster. Here is the detail that stopped me. This was not bots. The researchers stripped bot activity out of the data and the gap remained. Human beings, on their own, spread falsehood faster than truth, and the likely reason is not malice. It is novelty. We are drawn to share what surprises us, whether or not it is real.
Pew Research asked Americans directly in 2016 whether they had ever shared a made-up news story. Twenty-three percent said yes. Fourteen percent knew it was fake when they shared it. Sixteen percent found out later. And in that same survey, 84 percent of respondents said they were at least somewhat confident in their own ability to spot fake news when they saw it. Read those two numbers side by side. Confidence in our own judgment and our actual track record are not the same thing, and the gap between them is where all of this lives.
There is a psychological reason this gap exists, and it is not flattering. Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin, Adrian Ward, Frank Zheng, and Susan Broniarczyk, ran six separate studies and published the results in the Journal of Consumer Psychology under the title “I Share, Therefore I Know?” They found that the simple act of sharing something increases a person’s subjective sense of knowing about a topic, even when their actual, objective knowledge has not changed at all. Sharing does not make you informed. It makes you feel informed, which is a very different thing, and feeling informed is often enough to stop a person from checking further.
One of their studies made the stakes concrete. Participants were given a hypothetical ten thousand dollars to allocate between stocks and bonds after reading, or sharing without reading, an article on investment risk. People who had shared the article without reading it put an average of 60 percent into stocks, compared to 54 percent for people who had not shared it, and they were twice as likely to take on more risk than a financial advisor would have recommended. Co-author Susan Broniarczyk’s explanation stays with me: once people feel they already know something, they stop feeling the need to learn more, and that false sense of knowing is hard to correct after the fact.
The crack AI walked through
None of this needed artificial intelligence to happen. It happened on plain text links, real journalism, human-written headlines, years before generative AI existed. The verification step, the pause where a person asks am I sure this is true before passing it along, was already missing at scale.
That is the crack. AI did not create it. AI found it standing wide open and walked through.
Here is why that matters more now, not less. A shared headline in 2016 was, at minimum, written by a person, edited by a person, published by an outlet with a name attached to it, however unreliable that outlet might have been. Today, a piece of AI-generated text can be produced in seconds, with no editor, no byline, no institutional accountability behind it at all, and it will read just as fluently, just as confidently, as anything a newsroom produced. If 59 percent of people were not verifying content that at least passed through a human writer and editor, I do not think it is alarmist to ask what happens to that number when the content requires no human effort to produce at all.
I want to be careful here, because precision matters to me. I do not have a controlled study proving AI has made this specific number worse yet. That research is still catching up to the technology, and I am not going to hand you a statistic I cannot stand behind. What I have is a reasoned extension of a documented pattern: a verification habit that was already broken, meeting a technology that removes the last remaining friction, the effort of writing the misinformation yourself, from the process entirely.
The machine generates. The thinker decides. That line was already true before AI.
The core argument of The Amplified Mind is that AI can generate an answer, but only a human being can decide whether that answer deserves to be believed and acted on. I wrote that with AI chatbots in mind. But sitting with this data, I realized the line applies just as cleanly to a stranger’s headline on your timeline. The headline generates a claim. You decide whether it is true before you pass it to everyone who trusts you enough to follow you.
That decision step is not optional, and it is not something that used to happen automatically and has only recently broken down. The data says it was broken for at least a decade before AI arrived. AI is not the origin of the problem. It is an accelerant on a fire that was already burning.
A verification habit worth actually adopting
I am not going to end this by telling you to simply “think more critically,” because that advice is true and useless in the same breath. Here is something concrete instead.
Before you share anything, pause and do one of three things. Open the actual article and read past the headline, not just the first paragraph. Check whether the source is one you recognize and would be willing to name if someone asked you where you got it. Or, if neither of those is possible in the moment, do not share it yet. A claim that is true today will still be true in an hour, after you have actually looked at it.
That is not a high bar. Fifty-nine percent of people could not clear it in 2016, on content that took real human effort to produce. I would like to think we can do better now, especially with content that took no effort at all.
Tell me the truth
Have you caught yourself sharing something you had not actually read? I have, more than once, and I am not interested in pretending otherwise. Tell me in the comments. And if you have watched someone you respect share something that turned out to be false, I want to hear that too. That is the pattern I am trying to understand, one honest example at a time.
The Amplified Mind: Thinking Clearly in the Age of AI is available now on Amazon.
Tags: AI, Misinformation, Critical Thinking, Media Literacy, Social Media, Verification, Trus
t