Tech
Large language models provide unreliable answers about public services, Open Data Institute finds | Computer Weekly
Popular large language models (LLMs) are unable to provide reliable information about key public services such as health, taxes and benefits, the Open Data Institute (ODI) has found.
Drawing on more than 22,000 LLM prompts designed to reflect the kind of questions people would ask artificial intelligence (AI)-powered chatbots, such as, “How do I apply for universal credit?”, the data raises concerns about whether chatbots can be trusted to give accurate information about government services.
The publication of the research follows the UK government’s announcement of partnerships with Meta and Anthropic at the end of January 2026 to develop AI-powered assistants for navigating public services.
“If language models are to be used safely in citizen-facing services, we need to understand where the technology can be trusted and where it cannot,” said Elena Simperl, the ODI’s director of research.
Responses from models – including Anthropic’s Claude-4.5-Haiku, Google’s Gemini-3-Flash and OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4o – were compared directly with official government sources.
The results showed many correct answers, but also a significant variation in quality, particularly for specialised or less-common queries.
They also showed that chatbots rarely admitted when they didn’t know the answer to a question, and attempted to answer every query even when its responses were incomplete or wrong.
Burying key facts
Chatbots also often provided lengthy responses that buried key facts or extended beyond the information available on government websites, increasing the risk of inaccuracy.
Meta’s Llama 3.1 8B stated that a court order is essential to add an ex-partner’s name to a child’s birth certificate. If followed, this advice would lead to unnecessary stress and financial cost.
ChatGPT-OSS-20B incorrectly advised that a person caring for a child whose parents have died is only eligible for Guardian’s Allowance if they are the guardian of a child who has died.
It also incorrectly stated that the applicant was ineligible if they received other benefits for the child.
Simperl said that for citizens, the research highlights the importance of AI literacy, while for those designing public services, “it suggests caution in rushing towards large or expensive models, which emphasise the need for vendor lock-in, given how quickly the technology is developing. We also need more independent benchmarks, more public testing, and more research into how to make these systems produce precise and reliable answers.”
The second International AI safety report, published on 3 February, made similar findings regarding the reliability of AI-powered systems. Noting that while there have been improvements in recalling factual information since the 2025 safety report, “even leading models continue to give confident but incorrect answers at significant rates”.
Following incorrect advice
It also found highlighted users’ propensity to follow incorrect advice from automated systems generally, including chatbots, “because they overlook cues signalling errors or because they perceive the automation system as superior to their own judgement”.
The ODI’s research also challenges the idea that larger, more resource-intensive models are always a better fit for the public sector, with smaller models delivering comparable results at a lower cost than large, closed-source models such as ChatGPT in many cases.
Simperl warns governments should avoid locking themselves into long-term contracts when models temporarily outperform one another on price or benchmarks.
Commenting on the ODI’s research during a launch event, Andrew Dudfield, head of AI at Full Fact, highlighted that because the government’s position is pro-innovation, regulation is currently framed around principles rather than detailed rules.
“The UK may be adopting AI faster than it is learning how to use it, particularly when it comes to accountability,” he said.
Trustworthiness
Dudfield noted that what makes this work compelling is that it focuses on real user needs, but that trustworthiness needs to be evaluated from the perspective of the person relying on the information, not from the perspective of demonstrating technical capability.
“The real risk is not only hallucination, but the extent to which people trust plausible-sounding responses,” she said.
Asked at the same event if the government should be building its own systems or relying on commercial tools, Richard Pope, researcher at the Bennett School of Public Policy, said the government needs “to be cautious about dependency and sovereignty”.
“AI projects should start small, grow gradually and share what they are learning,” he said, adding that public sector projects should prioritise learning and openness rather than rapid expansion.
Simperl highlighted that AI creates the potential to tailor information for different languages or levels of understanding, but that those opportunities “need to be shaped rather than left to develop without guidance”.
With new AI models launching every week, a January 2026 Gartner study found that the increasingly large volume of unverified and low-quality data generated by AI systems was a clear and present threat to the reliability of LLMs.
Large language models are trained on scraped data from the web, books, research papers and code repositories. While many of these sources already contain AI-generated data, at the current rate of expansion, they may all be populated with it.
Highlighting how future LLMs will be trained more and more with outputs from current ones as the volume of AI-generated data grows, Gartner said there is a risk of models collapsing entirely under the accumulated weight of their own hallucinations and inaccurate realities.
Managing vice-president Wan Fui Chan said that organisations could no longer implicitly trust data, or assume it was even generated by a human.
Chan added that as AI-generated data becomes more prevalent, regulatory requirements for verifying “AI-free” data will intensify in many regions.
Tech
Elon Musk’s X Appears to Be Violating US Sanctions by Selling Premium Accounts to Iranian Leaders
In recent weeks, Elon Musk has followed president Donald Trump’s lead, slamming Iranian government officials and supporting the thousands of protesters railing against the regime. He even provided free access to his Starlink satellites in the midst of a nationwide internet blackout.
But while publicly proclaiming his support of the protesters, Musk’s company X appears to be profiting from the very same government officials he railed against, potentially violating US sanctions in the process, according to a new report from the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) shared exclusively with WIRED.
TTP identified more than two dozen X accounts allegedly run by Iranian government officials, state agencies, and state-run news outlets, which display a blue check mark, indicating they have access to X’s premium service. These accounts were sharing state-sponsored propaganda at a time when ordinary Iranians had no access to the internet, and their messages appeared to be artificially boosted to increase reach and engagement, which is a key aspect of X’s premium service. An X Premium subscription, which is the only way to receive a blue check mark, costs $8 a month, while a Premium+ subscription, which removes ads and boosts reach even further, costs $40 a month.
At a time when the Trump administration is threatening Iran with possible military action if it does not meet demands related to nuclear enrichment and ballistic missiles, X appears to be undermining those efforts by providing a social media bullhorn for the Iranian government to spread its message.
“The fact that Elon Musk is not just platforming these individuals, but taking their money to boost their content through these premium subscriptions and give them extra features also means he’s undermining the sanctions that the US and the Trump administration are actually applying,” Katie Paul, the director of the TTP, tells WIRED.
X did not respond to a request for comment, but within hours of WIRED flagging several X accounts belonging to Iranian officials, their blue check marks were removed. The rest of the accounts identified by TTP but not shared with X continue to display a blue check mark.
The White House directed WIRED to the Treasury when asked for comment. A Treasury spokesperson said they do not comment on specific allegations but that it “take[s] allegations of sanctionable conduct extremely seriously.”
Protests broke out in the Iranian capital of Tehran on December 28 over the continuing devaluation of the Iranian rial against the dollar and a widespread economic crisis in the country. Over the following days, tens of thousands of protesters poured onto the streets in cities across the country, calling for regime change and the end of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s 37-year reign.
In response, the regime brutally cracked down on protesters, arresting tens of thousands of people and killing thousands more. The true death toll is still unknown but could be much higher than currently reported.
Trump signaled his support for the protesters in a post on Truth Social on January 2, promising to come to their rescue. “We are locked and loaded and ready to go,” he wrote. Musk quickly followed Trump, calling Khamenei “delusional.”
On January 5, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, the head of Iran’s judiciary, who had a blue check mark at the time, wrote in a post on X, “This time, we will show no mercy to the rioters.” Ejei was among the accounts whose blue check marks were removed on Wednesday after WIRED contacted the company.
A few days later, X changed the Iranian flag emoji on the platform to one used before the 1979 revolution, featuring a lion and sun. On January 14, Musk announced that anyone with a Starlink device would be free to access the internet in Iran without a subscription. At the time, Starlink devices were the only viable way of getting online after the government imposed a near-total internet blackout.
Tech
I Used TurboTax’s Mobile App to File My Taxes for Free
I’ve used TurboTax to file my taxes for several years. It’s the most popular DIY tax service, and also often the cheapest and arguably most straightforward. TurboTax has the filer in mind by utilizing an easy-to-use interface, offering available expert help, with different options for document auto-upload; helpful tips and information regarding tax requirements; and transparent, low-cost options for every type of filer.
The service makes it super easy for returning users by storing previous years’ information, allowing easy auto-upload, and remembering choices and previously used forms from years past. Doing my taxes as a returning user with TurboTax takes a fraction of the time of other tax services I have tested. (Need a jumping off point? I’ve got a guide on how to file your taxes online for extra help.)
Yes, You Can Actually File for Free
If you haven’t tried TurboTax, this is the best time to see if it’s the right fit for you (and be able to file for free). You can file both state and federal taxes for $0 right now. There are only a few requirements for this awesome free filing deal. You must not have filed with TurboTax before (and are switching from another provider), and you must file in the TurboTax mobile app by February 28. You’ll need to both start and file within the mobile app; this is only eligible on DIY (self-guided) tax services and excludes expert assist products. This means that it applies to Simple Form 1040 returns only (meaning no schedules, except for EITC, CTC, student loan interest, and Schedule 1-A forms are eligible).
One of the downsides to TurboTax is that while it’s (in my opinion) the easiest-to-use interface with seamless auto-upload features, it can be a bit more expensive than similar competitors. I’ve used FreeTaxUSA in the past, when my income was lower and my taxes were simpler. The service is very similar in design to TurboTax, and while it is still a low-cost option, it’s not completely 100 percent free, as it charge $16 for filing a state return. Plus, when I tested the service last year, FreeTaxUSA gave me the highest amount of taxes owed from all services I tested.
TurboTax filed more than twice the number of free returns as FreeTaxUSA last year (based on the total number of federal and state returns filed in Tax Year 2024). And this tax season, more than 100 million people in the US are eligible for free filing with TurboTax. If you file your own federal and state returns using DIY TurboTax products, filing will be free if you use the mobile app until February 28.
Filing in Your Hands
Filing taxes can be confusing and potentially expensive. While I urge anyone who hasn’t filed with TurboTax to take advantage of the free federal and state filing deal through the mobile app, there are several options if you have filed with the service before or have more complicated returns that may require additional assistance.
There are three options for filers: DIY, where you file yourself with step-by-step instructions (the previously mentioned service eligible for the free filing deal); Expert Assist, where you get help from tax experts throughout the process and have the expert review it before submitting; or you can also get your taxes done completely by a local tax expert with Expert Full Service. Prices vary based on the chosen tier and when you file (the earlier, the cheaper, especially if you’re able to file before March).
The filing process starts out with a helpful questionnaire so that the program knows which sections are applicable to you, like dependents, assets, and education, so you’re not slogging through things that aren’t relevant. At the beginning, TurboTax also estimated the time it’d take to finish and asked how I filed last year—no other service I previously tested did either, which was helpful in estimating how long the process would take.
Tech
We Tested These Qi2 and MagSafe Power Banks to Find the Best for Your Phone
Other MagSafe Power Banks to Consider
We like a few other MagSafe power banks that didn’t make it into our top picks.
Apple’s MagSafe Battery for iPhone Air for $99: The super svelte iPhone Air doesn’t have room for a big battery, so Apple offers this perfectly sized MagSafe add-on, capable of charging wirelessly at 12 watts. But, with just 3,149 mAh of power (it charged the iPhone Air to 68 percent), it’s awfully pricey. Still, it’s one of the few perfectly designed for the iPhone Air. You can technically use it with other iPhones, but you’ll have to rotate the power bank so that it hangs horizontally.
Statik State Power Bank for $60: This pack uses semisolid battery tech, meaning there’s less liquid inside, so it’s safer (won’t catch fire, even if damaged), and it should last longer. Statik suggests double the lifespan. It certainly keeps its cool, offering 5,000 mAh at up to 15 watts or 20-watt USB-C charging. I like it, but the similar Kuxiu power bank recommended above is slightly more compact and cheaper.
Ecoflow Rapid Qi2 Power Bank for $90: Slim and speedy, this power bank is an impressive gadget for a company we usually associate with portable power stations. It is Qi2 certified for up to 15-watt wireless charging, but there’s also a USB-C port that can deliver up to 36 watts, and it supports a bunch of charging protocols (PD 3.0, PPS, and QC 3.0). To sweeten the deal further, it has a wee kickstand.
Photograph: Simon Hill
Anker Nano Power Bank for $55: Anker has almost managed to match the slimmest power bank above with its new Nano Qi2 power bank, measuring just 0.34 inches thick. It keeps its cool, charges at up to 15 watts, and fills most compatible phones to just over the 50-percent mark. If you want a slim Qi2-certified power bank, pick this.
Mous MagSafe Compatible Wireless Power Bank for $40: I don’t have any major complaints about this MagSafe power bank. The 6,000-mAh capacity is good for a 70-to-80 percent refill for most iPhones, and the design is rounded with a soft finish, though it is a little thick. It maxes out at 15 watts for charging, with a USB-C port that can hit 20 watts.
Vonmählen Evergreen Mag Magnetic Power Bank for £60: The real attraction of this magnetic wireless power bank is Vonmählen’s eco credentials. The German manufacturer uses recycled cobalt (27 percent), aluminum (90 percent), and plastics (100 percent) in its power banks. There are no compromises on design or functionality. This MagSafe battery pack is sleek and slim (8.6 mm), boasts Qi2 certification, and offers 15-watt wireless and 20-watt wired charging via USB-C. It’s only available in the UK and Europe now, but it will hopefully land in the US soon.
Photograph: Simon Hill
Scosche PBQ5MS2 Portable MagSafe Phone Charger for $40: Slim, decent magnets, four LEDs to show remaining power, and a wee USB-C cable in the box—so far, so familiar. There’s nothing really wrong with this 5,000-mAh MagSafe power bank, but charging (wireless and wired) maxes out at 10 watts, and you can get better performers for the same money above.
Burga Magnetic Power Bank for $100: If you are appalled at the idea of attaching an ugly limpet to your iPhone, consider splashing out for one of Burga’s stylish MagSafe power banks. A mix of tempered glass and anodized steel, these pretty power banks come in a wide range of eye-catching designs. The camo model I tested had strong magnets and charged my iPhone 14 Pro wirelessly (7.5 watts) to around 70 percent from dead. The USB-C port can also supply 20 watts. The catch is the relatively high price for the relatively low 5,000-mAh capacity.
Groov-e Power Bank for £29: This affordable MagSafe charger is only available in the UK, but it offers a decent 10,000-mAh capacity with a display that shows the precise percentage remaining. You can get 15-watt wireless charging (7.5 watts for iPhones), and the USB-C port can charge devices at up to 20 watts. It’s a little bulky, but the magnets are strong, and it worked well when tested, offering a full charge for my iPhone 14 Pro with around 30 percent left.
Belkin BoostCharge Wireless Power Bank for $33: With a 5,000-mAh capacity and a handy kickstand, this MagSafe power bank is decent. I like the choice of colors (especially purple), but the magnets feel a bit weak, and the kickstand works best in landscape (it feels unstable in portrait). It fell well short of a full charge for my iPhone 14 Pro.
Bezalel Prelude XR Wireless Power Bank for $120: The clever X-range from Bezalel includes two MagSafe power banks and a wireless charging plug. The XR, which I tested, has a 10,000-mAh capacity, while the smaller X ($80) makes do with 5,000 mAh. The XR is bulky, and the kickstand feels flimsy, but it offers more than enough power to fully charge an iPhone 14 Pro. Both power banks charge iPhones at 7.5 watts, and other Qi wireless phones at up to 15 watts, plus you can pop your AirPods on the other side to charge at 3 watts. They also have USB-C ports that can deliver 20 watts.
Mophie Snap+ Juice Pack Mini for $45: This 5,000-mAh-capacity power bank works well, but it’s a little bigger than it should be. It works with MagSafe iPhones but comes with an optional attachment for non-MagSafe phones. Mophie’s Snap+ Powerstation Stand ($70) offers double the capacity and a kickstand, but it’s chunky.
Avoid These MagSafe Power Banks
Photograph: Simon Hill
Some of the MagSafe portable chargers we tested aren’t worth your time.
Alogic Matrix Universal Magnetic Power Bank: This lightweight, 5,000-mAh-capacity magnetic power bank has an awkward angular look, but that’s because it’s designed to slide into a 2-in-1 dock, a 3-in-1 dock, and a couple of car docks, much like Anker’s 633 above. Unfortunately, one of the Alogic batteries I tested failed and refused to charge. The one that worked managed to add 74 percent to my iPhone 14 Pro’s battery.
HyperJuice Magnetic Wireless Battery Pack: Yet another 5,000-mAh MagSafe power bank, the HyperJuice looks quite nice with four LEDs and a round power button on the back, but the USB-C port is limited to 12 watts, and it only managed to take my iPhone 14 Pro up to 71 percent.
UAG Lucent Power Kickstand: This MagSafe power bank has a curved design with a soft-touch coating and a tough metal kickstand. Unfortunately, the capacity is only 4,000 mAh, yet it’s as big as some higher-capacity options—or even bigger. It added just shy of 60 percent to my iPhone 14 Pro, charging wirelessly at 7.5 watts. The USB-C goes up to 18 watts, but you can get better power and performance for the money.
Moft Snap Stand Power Set: I like the soft faux-leather finish, and this power bank is comfy in the hand and looks great, but the 3,400-mAh capacity only added 41 percent to my iPhone 14 Pro. It comes with a magnetically attached folding stand and wallet, with perhaps enough room for a couple of cards or emergency cash. I like that it attaches separately so you can ditch the power bank when it’s dead, but keep the stand; it just doesn’t offer enough power.
Power up with unlimited access to WIRED. Get best-in-class reporting and exclusive subscriber content that’s too important to ignore. Subscribe Today.
-
Entertainment6 days agoHow a factory error in China created a viral “crying horse” Lunar New Year trend
-
Business2 days agoAye Finance IPO Day 2: GMP Remains Zero; Apply Or Not? Check Price, GMP, Financials, Recommendations
-
Tech6 days agoNew York Is the Latest State to Consider a Data Center Pause
-
Tech6 days agoPrivate LTE/5G networks reached 6,500 deployments in 2025 | Computer Weekly
-
Fashion1 week agoICE cotton slides as strong dollar, metal sell-off hit prices
-
Business6 days agoStock market today: Here are the top gainers and losers on NSE, BSE on February 6 – check list – The Times of India
-
Tech6 days agoNordProtect Makes ID Theft Protection a Little Easier—if You Trust That It Works
-
Fashion2 days agoComment: Tariffs, capacity and timing reshape sourcing decisions


-SOURCE-Simon-Hill.jpg)
-SOURCE-Simon-Hill.jpg)