Research finds that asking a model to review its answer, or whether it is sure, can turn right answers wrong — and that correction works when something external can be checked.
Guides
How to work with AI, from the evidence. Each guide starts from published research — mostly other people's — reports what it actually found, and turns that into something you can do differently on Monday.
4 guides · 8 sources cited
What every guide here does
- Links the source and says when it was retrieved.Read the original; a guide is a reading of it, not a replacement.
- Reports only what the source says. Every claim was checked against the paper itself, not recalled from it — citing a study is not the same as reading one.
- Separates the dated from the durable. A percentage measured on a 2023 model is not a description of today's. Each guide says which of its findings depend on the models tested and which do not.
- Says where it is our view. What follows from the evidence is our reasoning, marked as a position, and you may draw a different conclusion from the same papers.
The guides
A study of 162 personas found none made models reliably more accurate on factual questions. A role shapes tone and focus; accuracy comes from what you hand over, not what you call the model.
Models used information at the start and end of long inputs far better than in the middle — at worst, below having no documents. Put material first, the question last, and cut what is not needed.
A controlled study finds context files do not improve task success and cost 20% more — and its detailed findings are closer to this library's own rule than its headline suggests.