I like using AI for coding (no, I don't blindly commit massive features), but any time I ask it questions that don't have super clear-cut answers obvious to the layman from a quick google search, it tends to give "good enough" answers which are actually "nowhere near".
Go ask it (well, really, google search) something to do with tuning an Audi 3.0 tdi ASB or BMK engine and it'll think you have a nice Garrett turbo that's easy to build hybrids from and a weak CP4 pump that can implode on you and take out the entire fuel system... Whereas you actually have a weak ass BorgWarner turbo that can't support bigger internals and a super strong CP3 pump because it was shamelessly using forum threads about the newer versions with the 4 digit codes (CDYA, CASA, etc) as the source.
These are the things you easily know when you've either read a lot of forum threads, or peeked under the hood of one of these engines. But most AI tools' web search tends to just look at the first threads it finds and deem that good enough.
Ah but the thing is, the sources it finds are themselves wrong. They're talking about different things. If it finds the right sources, the information is most likely pretty good.
It's entirely possible that this could still be tuned somehow, but the way it is now, I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of it unless I know enough to verify the output myself, meaning it's pretty useless to laymen (which is whom a "veracity" bot would be for)