There is no guarantee those sources say what the answer says, or indeed that they actually exist. Generators can and do assemble words into phrases that look like citations, but those sources don’t exist. It’s actually a problem for librarians, who keep getting accused of hiding nonexistent books “cited” by ChatGPT

Or in comic form:

![A comic in four panels and one insert by Davide Ravoy:

Panel 1. While walking on a swamp, a young Gothic Sorceress and her AI cyber parrot flying behind her, meets a little lonely frog on the leaves of waterlilies. The Gothic sorcereress walks with confidence.

AI Parrot: Frog identified. Based on my analysis, I think you should kiss it.
Gothic Sorceress: Ugh! No way Avian Intelligence, and leave me alone.

Panel 2. Shot on the AI Parrot, explaining, the Gothic sorceress turn back, emitting doubt about what the AI bird says.

AI Parrot: I insist, my sources indicate a high probability of a cursed prince.
Gothic Sorceress: Your sources?!

Panel 3. Shot on the AI Parrot, hallucinating a list of sources. The Gothic sorcerer considers the list.

AI Parrot: Sources:

    "The Princess's Pocket Guide"
    Padwick L. (1420), page 45-52, Enchanted Press.
    "Unmasking the Prince Within"
    Croak, O. (1417), page 25, Royal Publishing.
    "Basic Curse Lifting"
    O.Rly, (1412). chapter 42, Arcane Editions.
    "Leap of Faith"
    Frogsworth B.S. (1368). Mystic Publishing.

Insert panel: The Gothic Sorceress kisses the frog, who blushes:

soundFx: "Smack!"

Panel 4. The frog is still a frog. The Gothic Sorceress spits in disgust. The frog continues to blush.

Gothic Sorceress: Pwah! Fake sources! Lies! All of it!
Frog: ♥](https://media.thebrainbin.org/e2/4f/e24f8760a24fd483616a50a6241af1a11915208bcee0c5cf57357980486e9781.jpg)