This is a research prototype. The data and analyses are preliminary and not yet validated — we'd welcome your .
The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development used generative AI to draft a school cellphone policy resolution, which included multiple fabricated academic citations. Despite claims of correction, vestiges of these AI-generated hallucinations remained in the final document voted on by the state Board of Education. The incident highlights risks associated with using AI for drafting official government policy without proper verification.
In October 2024, Alaska’s Education Commissioner Deena Bishop allegedly used generative AI to draft a school cellphone policy, resulting in reportedly fabricated citations of non-existent studies. The document, which did not disclose AI use, was shared with the state Board of Education, and despite reported corrections, AI-generated errors remained in the final resolution.
Domain classification, causal taxonomy, severity scores, and national security assessments were LLM-classified and may contain errors.
AI systems that inadvertently generate or spread incorrect or deceptive information, which can lead to inaccurate beliefs in users and undermine their autonomy. Humans that make decisions based on false beliefs can experience physical, emotional or material harms
Also classified as
State officials relied on the AI system to draft policy and generate citations without verifying the accuracy of the outputs.
The AI system failed to perform reliably by hallucinating non-existent sources, demonstrating a technical limitation in critical applications.
The generative AI system fabricated academic citations that were published in an official state policy document, spreading false information to policymakers and the public.
AI system
Due to a decision or action made by an AI system
Unintentional
Due to an unexpected outcome from pursuing a goal
Post-deployment
Occurring after the AI model has been trained and deployed
The risk was caused by the generative AI system hallucinating non-existent academic citations during the drafting process, which was an unexpected outcome of using the tool.
Added categories peak at 3: Substantial (Epistemic Harm, Inferred)
The Alaska Department of Education used generative AI to draft a school policy resolution containing fabricated citations. While it represents a minor compromise of state-level policy-drafting integrity, it poses negligible national security risks and was managed through standard administrative corrections.
The AI system was used as a writing assistant to help draft the policy resolution and suggest sources, requiring human oversight and verification.
Limited Risk: The AI system used was a generative AI platform for content generation, which is subject to transparency obligations under the EU AI Act to disclose that the content was AI-generated.
The AI system was used by the education commissioner to draft a policy resolution and search for academic sources to support the policy claims.
The report provides clear, detailed, and uncontested facts about the state official's use of generative AI, the specific fake citations generated, and the subsequent corrections and remaining errors. The role of the AI as a source of hallucinated information is explicitly confirmed by both the department spokesperson and an external AI expert.
None. The facts of the AI's hallucination and its use by the commissioner are clearly established and admitted by the department.
Technology
AI Hallucination
The model generated fake citations that resembled real academic studies.
Lack of Source Verification
AI lacks built-in mechanisms to verify truthfulness of generated URLs.
Data Inputs
Insufficient Training Data
The AI model lacked accurate real-time data to retrieve genuine sources.
Human Factors
Low AI Literacy
Officials treated generative AI as a reliable search tool rather than LLM.
Overreliance on AI Output
Commissioner trusted the AI's generated citations without manual checking.
Process and Methods
Inadequate Review Process
The department failed to verify citations before publishing the draft.
Use of AI Placeholders
Drafting process relied on unverified AI text as temporary filler.
Management
Lack of Accountability
Management did not disclose AI use in the conception of the document.
Inadequate Risk Assessment
Failure to assess the impact of AI misinformation on public trust.
Regulatory Environment
Absence of AI Use Policy
No state regulations exist governing AI use in official policy drafting.
AI system involved
Identified by automated extraction; can differ from the alleged developers above.
