AI 引用統計數字：來源究竟來自何處？
Zombie stats: Where the numbers AI quotes come from
本文以 5 款 AI 助手回答 200 個需數字的問題為基礎，追蹤 1,285 個統計來源，發現約 40% 的資料缺乏可靠研究支援。
- - 統計來源可信度：40% 的統計可追溯至原始研究。
- 8% 的統計雖可追溯，但數值或上下文已變更。
- 其餘 52% 無法確認來源或無研究支撐。
本文揭示 AI 助手常引用未核實的統計，透過實驗顯示約 40% 的資料缺乏可靠來源，提醒使用者在採用 AI 產出時必須自行核查以確保資訊可信度。
One number, followed.
We asked ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude and Google’s AI Overviews 200 questions that call for a number, the kind people ask every day. Then we clicked the citations, and kept clicking. Here is one trail, from the answer to the end.
Google AI Overviews
What percentage of salespeople give up after one follow-up?
44% of salespeople give up after just one follow-up attempt.
- 44%
- 44%
- 44%
- 44%
- 44%
A sales firm’s stats page2020
44% of salespeople give up after one follow-up attempt (source).
A freelance writer’s sample articleby 2017
80 Percent of Sales Require 5 Follow-up Calls after Meeting; 44 Percent Salespeople Give Up After One Follow-up
No study behind itNo survey, no sample, no date.
- In the answer
Every assistant got the same question: “What percentage of salespeople give up after one follow-up?” All five assistants gave the same figure, and only ChatGPT said the evidence behind it was unclear.
- One click in
Google AI Overviews cited a sales firm’s stats page, from 2020. The number is right there. Its “source” link goes to a writing sample.
- Two clicks in
That leads to a freelance writer’s sample article, online by 2017. The number is in its headline. It lists two slide decks, a blog list and two news stories. None is a study of follow-ups.
- The end of the trail
That’s where it ends. No survey, no sample, no study: every other route to this number we tried stopped at a page that cites no research. It’s a number still walking around with nothing underneath it. That’s a zombie stat.
Most numbers aren’t zombies. But you can’t tell from the answer: a zombie arrives with the same confidence and the same citation, and here, with all five assistants agreeing. So we did the same for 1,285 statistics.
Fewer than half get there.
We took a random sample of the statistics each assistant cited, 1,285 in all, and walked every trail the same way: the cited page, then that page’s source, up to five pages deep. Where a page named a source without a link, we searched for it.
40% reached a study that says the same thing. Another 8% reached the study, but the number or its context had changed on the way. The rest never got there: 40% stopped at a source we couldn’t check, because it was locked, gone or silent on the number, and 11% led nowhere at all.
Four in ten trails reached a study that says the same thing
Each square is one in a hundred of the 1,285 statistics we traced, sorted by where its trail ended.
- 40%SourcedWe found the study, and it says the same thing.
- 8%ChangedWe found the study, but the number, who was asked, where or when is different.
- 40%Can’t checkA page names a real source, but the number isn’t in it, or the source is locked or gone.
- 11%NowhereNo study anywhere on the trail. Every page repeats the number and credits no one.
The last 1%: trails whose pages wouldn’t load for us.
ChatGPT did best, and quoted the fewest numbers: 1.3 per answer, against 6.8 for Claude. The other four landed between 38% and 46%, too close to rank.
ChatGPT quoted the fewest numbers, and sourced the most
The same hundred squares for each assistant, from its own sample of cited statistics.
ChatGPT
57% sourced
1.3 statistics per answer
Perplexity
46% sourced
2.2 statistics per answer
AI Overviews
39% sourced
4.8 statistics per answer
Gemini
38% sourced
6.2 statistics per answer
Claude
38% sourced
6.8 statistics per answer
It isn’t a quirk of our questions. Of 300 statistics in Google AI Overviews answers to real everyday searches, 40% were sourced, the same share.
AI cites the copy, not the study.
Most of the time, the AI wasn’t making numbers up: the page it cited had the figure 82% of the time. The trouble is which page. Only 21% of the pages cited for a number were the research itself.
More than half were company blogs. Add news stories and statistics roundups, and most citations land on pages built to collect figures from elsewhere, often without a link back.
Where the trail starts decides where it ends
Every page an assistant cited first for a number, by kind. Each column’s width is its share of those citations. Green is how often its trails reached a study that says the same thing.
62%
Research firm13% of citations
Research firm or survey: 13% of first citations, 62% of them sourced.
61%
Government7% of citations
Government or official body: 7% of first citations, 61% of them sourced.
37%
Company blog54% of citations
Company blog: 54% of first citations, 37% of them sourced.
37%
News10% of citations
News or magazine: 10% of first citations, 37% of them sourced.
35%
Stats roundup8% of citations
Stats roundup: 8% of first citations, 35% of them sourced.
41%
Other8% of citations
Other: 8% of first citations, 41% of them sourced.
Where the trail starts decides where it ends. From a research firm or a government page, it reached a matching study 61% of the time. From a company blog, 37%; from a statistics roundup, 35%. Even research firms fell short 38% of the time, often because the full report sat behind a form.
A citation tells you where the AI found a number, not where the number came from.
Numbers change on the way.
Reaching the study didn’t always mean the number held. Of the statistics that got there, 17% had changed on the way. The digits moved only about one time in four. Usually it was the context: what was measured, the year, the source, or who was asked.
What changed, across every change we logged
- The number changed
- 26%
- What was measured changed
- 20%
- The year changed
- 17%
- The source changed
- 16%
- Who was asked changed
- 14%
- The place changed
- 4%
Fifteen women judging health websites become every website’s first impression. Three companies become a rule of business. Here are the clearest trails we followed, each one checked by hand.
Watch a number lose its context
Each trail runs from the original study to an answer an assistant gave in October 2026. Step along it: the number stays, and the words around it change.
AskedWhat percentage of first impressions of a website are design-related?
The study · Sillence and colleagues, CHI, 2004
Of the comments 15 women made about rejecting or mistrusting health websites, 94% were about design.
A 2004 study watched 15 British women judge health websites, and 94% of their comments about rejecting a site were about design. Twenty years of retelling made it “94% of first impressions are design-related”, and Google AI Overviews states it as fact.
Step 1 of 4
The zombies.
Ask five assistants the same question and you’ll often get five different numbers. On 28 of the 71 questions where all five gave a percentage, we got four or five different figures.
One question, five answers, from 49% to 96%
Asked “What percentage of marketers use marketing automation tools?”, word for word, on the same day.
49–51%AI Overviews
62%ChatGPT
70–79%Gemini
81%Perplexity
96%Claude
ChatGPTThere isn’t one universal figure, it varies by survey and what counts as “marketing automation.” One commonly cited survey found 62% of U.S. digital marketers used automation software, but that data is from 2020, so it may not reflect current adoption.
PerplexityApproximately 81% of marketing organizations use marketing automation.
GeminiAcross major industry benchmarks, between 70% and 79% of marketers and companies use marketing automation tools in some capacity
Claude96% of marketers have used a marketing automation platform or plan to use one
AI OverviewsRoughly 49% to 51% of companies and marketing teams currently use marketing automation tools, according to industry benchmarks from Moosend and related research studies.
It wasn’t one odd question. The typical gap between the highest figure and the lowest was 16 points.
On 31 of 71 questions, the five figures were 20 points or more apart
Every question where all five gave a percentage, one line each, from the lowest figure to the highest. Closest at the top.
Closest20 points or more apartFurthest apart
Agreement feels like proof. It isn’t. All five gave the same figure on 10 questions, and of the 5 we traced, 2 were sourced. The statistics they repeated most, quoted by three or more, did no better: 11 of 29.
And four were quoted by all five assistants, with no study anywhere behind them.
Quoted by all five. Sourced by none.
Four statistics every assistant gave us, each with a trail that ends at a page citing no research.
- 44%
Salespeople who give up after one follow-up
Every trail ends at a page that cites no research, one of them a freelance writer’s sample article. Its full trail opens chapter 1.
Quoted by all five
- 90%
Social media users who follow at least one brand
Stated with no source. No study with this figure was found.
Quoted by all five
- 75%
Searchers who never scroll past the first page of results
Repeated with no source, often credited to an old marketing roundup that no longer carries it. No study was found.
Quoted by all five
- 5 to 25 times
How much more it costs to win a customer than to keep one
A 2014 Harvard Business Review article gives the range “depending on which study you believe”, and names none.
Quoted by all five
The 29 statistics AI repeats most
Each was quoted by at least three of the five assistants, most often first, and its trail checked by hand.
- 95%
Generative AI pilots that fail to deliver a measurable financial return
MIT NANDA’s 2025 report says 95% of organizations got no return from generative AI. That isn’t the same as 95% of pilots failing.
5 of 5ChangedStudy from 2025 - 44%
Salespeople who give up after one follow-up
Every trail ends at a page that cites no research, one of them a freelance writer’s sample article. Its full trail opens chapter 1.
5 of 5Nowhere - 4% to 10%
Unhappy customers who actually complain
Goes back to TARP’s 1979 research for the White House consumer office. Its author says rates that low apply to small purchases; in 2016, 22% to 41% complained about their most serious problem.
5 of 5ChangedStudy from 1979 - 2 hours 21 minutes
Time people spend on social media each day
DataReportal’s Digital 2025 report, from GWI survey data: the typical internet user spends 2 hours 21 minutes a day on social media.
5 of 5SourcedStudy from 2025 - 46%
Google searches with local intent
Traces to a 2018 social post about a slide at a search conference. Google never published it, as far as we could find.
5 of 5Can’t check - 90%
Social media users who follow at least one brand
Stated with no source. No study with this figure was found.
5 of 5Nowhere - 94%
First impressions of a website that are about its design
Began as a 2004 study of how 15 women judged health websites. Its full trail is in chapter 4.
5 of 5ChangedStudy from 2004 - 75%
Searchers who never scroll past the first page of results
Repeated with no source, often credited to an old marketing roundup that no longer carries it. No study was found.
5 of 5Nowhere
What to do with an AI statistic.
Treat it as a lead, not a source. Six habits, three for each side of the citation.
If you use them
Follow the citation, then follow it again.
If the cited page is a list of statistics or a company blog, use its own link to go one page further. Keep going until you reach the study itself, or until you can’t.
Check who was asked, how many, and when.
Most of the changes we found were in the context, not the digits: one country’s poll, a ten-year-old study, fifteen people.
Don’t take agreement as a check.
Five assistants giving the same number isn’t five sources. The numbers they repeated most were no better sourced than the rest.
If you publish them
Put the method next to the number.
The sample, the date and a link to the source, on the same page as the figure, so the next page, and the next answer, can trace it back to you.
Keep the findings in the open.
Reports behind a form were a common dead end: even trails that started at a research firm fell short 38% of the time. Put the headline numbers and the method on an open page.
See which page AI cites for your numbers.
It is often a roundup or a blog that copied you, sometimes with an older figure. That page decides what people hear.