TL;DR

An Australian senator has described a research report used to lobby for $20 million in gambling education funding as “slop written by AI.” The review, sent to at least 10 politicians by the University of Sydney’s OurFutures Institute, contained fabricated references, non-existent studies, and claims contradicted by the sources they cited.

Fabricated evidence

Independent senator David Pocock said his office wrote to the OurFutures Institute after receiving the Youth Gambling in Australia Evidence Review. Analysis by Guardian Australia found at least 21 references where links were broken, papers did not appear to exist, or cited papers were different from those hyperlinked.

In one instance, the review attributed a claim about return on investment for school-based gambling prevention to the Productivity Commission. The Commission’s actual report expressed “reservations about the benefits of school-based gambling education” and noted it had been “strongly advocated by the gambling industry.”

One researcher named in the review, Deakin University’s Professor Samantha Thomas, said two papers referenced alongside her name were ones she “had not written and do not seem to exist.”

Institute response

OurFutures Institute chief executive Ken Wallace said the claims and policy rationale “remain evidenced and sound” and blamed an “editing tool” for mismatched and incorrectly formatted citations. He described it as a “genuine error” and said corrected versions would be shared with recipients.

Wallace did not explain how direct quotes cited in the review appeared to be fabricated, or how non-existent papers appeared alongside the names of known researchers.

Looking forward

The incident is a stark example of how AI-generated content can undermine policy processes when used without adequate review. As AI tools become more common in research and advocacy, the risk of hallucinated evidence reaching decision-makers is growing — particularly when the stakes involve millions in public funding.