AI doesn’t just surface answers anymore – it creates them. And when that answer is wrong but sounds right, the stakes get real. Hallucinated features, fake citations, opinion passed off as fact – this is what brands, publishers, and platforms are up against in the age of synthetic search. GEO Ethics steps in where old SEO playbooks fall short. It’s not just about being found – it’s about being represented accurately, before the AI makes something up on your behalf.
Trust, Truth, and the Unseen Layer of AI Search
There’s a quote – often linked to George Bernard Shaw – that feels especially relevant right now: “False knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance.”
That’s basically where we’re headed with AI search.
Back when ChatGPT crossed 100 million users in just a couple of months, the rules of the internet shifted. Search engines stopped acting like passive directories and turned into something closer to a conversation – one that generates answers on the fly, sometimes smarter, sometimes faster, often less predictable.
And sure, the pitch sounded great:
- Instant answers
- Better discovery
- Tailored results
But under that sleek surface, something more fragile is breaking – our shared sense of what’s real.
Take OpenAI’s latest model update. In benchmark tests, the o3 version hallucinated 33% of the time. That’s double the error rate of the previous model, o1. And o4-mini? It was even worse, getting it wrong nearly half the time on the same test.
As these models keep evolving, their complexity seems to come with a trade-off – more hallucinations. And that’s a real problem. The smarter the AI gets, the more confidently it can deliver answers that simply aren’t true. It’s forcing a rethink on how these systems are tested and rolled out.
When OpenAI launched GPT-5 in August 2025, they positioned it as a big leap forward. The claim? Up to 80% fewer hallucinations than earlier versions. GPT-5 introduced a hybrid setup that automatically switches between a fast-response mode and a deeper reasoning track – the idea being that tougher questions get more thoughtful processing.
And OpenAI isn’t alone in chasing cleaner outputs. Google’s been busy refining its own system, Gemini 2.5, through a feature called AI Mode. Instead of one-shot answers, it breaks a single query into dozens of smaller questions, runs parallel searches, and then stitches together a more complete response.
Still, third-party benchmarks tell a more cautious story. Vectara’s hallucination leaderboard puts GPT-5 at a 1.4% hallucination rate – better, but not exactly flawless.
Sure, 1.4% looks better on paper than GPT-4o’s 1.491%, but it still lags behind the top-performing Gemini models. And that’s the catch – what looks solid in a benchmark test often breaks down once it hits real-world use.
This isn’t a fringe issue. AI-generated answers are now baked into billions of searches, sitting right at the top of the page. Google’s AI Overviews have already made headlines for confidently serving up wild errors – like saying astronauts met cats on the moon, or that we’re still living in 2024.
These slip-ups might seem funny at first, but they point to something deeper. When false information is packaged neatly, delivered with confidence, and repeated across massive platforms, it doesn’t just mislead – it sticks. That’s how misinformation becomes normalized.
And for anyone working in SEO, content, or digital strategy, this shift isn’t academic. It reshapes everything we thought we knew about visibility.
Search is still about relevance, but the rules have changed. Now, the real challenge is staying visible and accurate – which is where Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) comes in.
GEO builds on the same foundations that guided great content for decades: clarity, credibility, consistency. But instead of optimizing just for people or static search crawlers, GEO adapts to a new environment – one where language models are the gatekeepers, interpreters, and sometimes even the editors of your message.
So GEO isn’t just about getting seen – it’s about being seen correctly. It’s about building content that machines can verify, represent, and interpret without distorting the meaning.
That’s the core of it. GEO isn’t just a strategy anymore. It’s a safeguard in a search landscape where the interface, the answer, and the context are all generated on the fly – and your brand is just one AI misfire away from being misunderstood.
Behind the GEO Strategy: NUOPTIMA’s Approach
At NUOPTIMA, we’re not just watching AI search evolve – we’re helping shape how brands show up inside it. Our team has spent the last few years building and refining a research-backed approach to Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) that’s already helping over 70 businesses get cited directly inside AI-generated answers. That means visibility where it matters most – not just page one, but in the answer.
We go beyond rankings. GEO for us is about placing your content at the foundation of the response, so when tools like Google’s AI Overviews or ChatGPT deliver an answer, your brand is part of the story – not left out of it. From deep content audits to custom-built AI Query Reports, we build strategies that match how large language models actually process information.
If you want to see how we think, how we work, or how we help clients move from invisible to essential in AI results – connect with us on LinkedIn. You’ll find case studies, behind-the-scenes breakdowns, and conversations that go beyond buzzwords. We’re open about what we’ve learned – and what we’re still figuring out.
When Citations Lie: The Credibility Trap
It’s not just that AI models get things wrong – it’s that they often do it with total confidence, dressed up with what look like legitimate sources. That’s the real issue. You’re not just dealing with a wrong answer – you’re dealing with a wrong answer that sounds right.
One of the more notorious cases hit in 2024. Google’s AI Overviews told users to mix an “eighth of a cup of nontoxic glue” into their pizza to help the cheese stick. Sounds absurd – and it was. The suggestion came straight from an old Reddit joke buried in a decade-old comment thread, but the system pulled it up and framed it as actual cooking advice.
And it didn’t stop there. AI-generated answers have encouraged people to bathe with toasters, eat small rocks, and follow anonymous medical advice scraped from who-knows-where.
From Harmless Mistakes to Business Risks
These oddball AI answers aren’t just bugs – they point to something deeper. The way large language models are trained gives equal weight to a decade-old Reddit joke and a peer-reviewed medical study. No real filter. No hierarchy. So when these systems “cite,” they’re often mimicking authority without delivering anything close to reliable information. And the consequences go way beyond goofy pizza recipes.
There’s a real business risk here – especially for brands that haven’t built a strong digital footprint. If you’re not clearly represented online, you’re vulnerable to being defined by outdated posts, surface-level takes, or subtle digs from competitors. Let’s say a SaaS brand doesn’t have solid bottom-of-funnel content. A rival might publish a “comparison” that paints them as clunky or overpriced. Then the AI picks that up, repeats it like it’s consensus, and suddenly that’s the narrative users see first.
When AI Invents What Doesn’t Exist
If that kind of narrative makes its way into something like Google’s AI Overviews or a ChatGPT response, it doesn’t just stay a one-off. It gets repeated as if it’s fact – not because it’s been verified, but because the system spotted a familiar pattern. And that pattern might come from a single blog post, a five-year-old comment thread, or a negative review with zero context. What starts as opinion quietly hardens into “trusted” AI guidance – often before the user has even landed on your site.
Sometimes, it gets weirder. These models don’t just amplify flawed input – they invent things from scratch.
A good example? Soundslice, a SaaS platform for learning music, started getting error reports linked to something strange: users were uploading ASCII guitar tabs after being told by ChatGPT that Soundslice could convert them into audio. Problem is, that feature never existed. The AI made it up – and users believed it.
Turns out, ChatGPT had been telling users to sign up for Soundslice and upload ASCII tabs to get audio playback. One problem – that feature didn’t exist. The AI invented it out of nowhere. So now users were arriving with expectations the product couldn’t meet, and the company looked like it had overpromised.
Instead of pushing back, the Soundslice team ended up building the feature just to keep up with the confusion. Founder Adrian Holovaty called it a practical decision – but also admitted it felt like the product roadmap had been hijacked by bad information.
Why GEO Becomes Essential
This is the bigger issue. When AI answers start acting as the default gateway to your brand, even the smallest distortion can snowball. Whether it’s outdated info, competitor spin, or something the model simply made up, the risk is the same: your company gets misrepresented before anyone even reaches your site.
One of the biggest blind spots in generative models is their complete disregard for intent, source credibility, or real-world context. They’re not built to judge quality – they’re built to spot patterns. And that’s where things start to fall apart.
- These systems can sound authoritative without actually being accurate.
- They pull citations, but often misinterpret them.
- They reference real data, but drop the disclaimers.
- They build responses that feel polished, while quietly bending the truth.
- And worst of all – they say it all like they’re 100% sure.
When this kind of output starts flooding the search results, the downstream effects are hard to ignore. Brands get misrepresented. Publishers lose their audience. Fact-checkers can’t keep up. And all of that flawed content? It ends up back in the training data, feeding the next model and locking in the same bad habits – just at greater scale.
This is where GEO shifts from helpful to essential. You’re not just trying to get seen anymore – you’re trying to make sure the version of your brand that shows up is actually correct. If you’re not shaping the inputs, the system will shape the output for you – and you probably won’t like how it turns out.
The Hallucination Problem Isn’t Going Away
Back when AI first started generating text that sounded human, it felt like a breakthrough. Fast forward, and that same strength is now one of its biggest weaknesses. What researchers politely call “hallucinations” are, in plain terms, confident mistakes – false answers that sound right and spread fast.
The worst part? These outputs don’t just seem believable – they often mimic the tone, structure, and surface-level authority of real information. They feel familiar. They’re hard to fact-check on the fly. And that makes them especially dangerous.
Legal and Medical Consequences
It’s not a fringe issue either. A joint study from Stanford and other academic groups found that legal research tools powered by AI – including from major players like LexisNexis and Thomson Reuters – hallucinated in anywhere from 17% to 33% of their responses.
In the legal world, these hallucinations show up in two dangerous ways – either the AI states the law flat-out wrong, or it cites a legitimate rule but attaches the wrong source. That second type might be even worse, because it misleads users who are relying on the system to point them to something credible.
Healthcare isn’t immune either. Even with highly trained models, hallucination rates in medical citations can range anywhere from 28% all the way up to 90%, depending on the task. That might not sound alarming at first glance – until you remember these systems are fielding billions of queries. At scale, those “minor” error rates turn into tens of millions of misleading or even harmful results every day.
Hallucinations in Search Results
And this isn’t staying tucked away in edge cases anymore. AI answers are now baked into mainstream search. As more AI-generated content appears directly in SERPs, these hallucinations are becoming part of the default experience for everyday users.
In March 2025, Semrush data showed that 13.14% of all Google queries triggered an AI Overview – nearly double the rate from just two months earlier. The spike was sharpest in the most sensitive areas: healthcare, law, government, science, and social topics. The places where accuracy really can’t afford to slip.
Why the Risks Are Growing
As the Semrush analyst put it, it’s a bold move for Google to roll out AI Overviews so aggressively in sectors like health, law, and science – areas where answers are often contested and the margin for error is slim. These are industries that already struggle with misinformation and carry heavy regulatory baggage.
Google might believe the models are accurate enough. But the reality is more complicated. As more users start trusting AI-generated summaries without question, the potential for bad information to spread grows fast – and at scale.
This Puts Us in a Tricky Spot
Traditional SEO was built on relevance, credibility, and clear signals of authority. But AI-generated results often remix content in ways that blur context or miss the original intent entirely.
You might still get cited – but not in the way you’d want. Maybe your brand appears in the output, but the framing is off, or key facts are distorted. And once that version hits the page, it becomes the new default for anyone who sees it.
That’s where GEO comes in. It’s not a magic fix for hallucinations, but it is a way to reduce the damage. GEO is about being deliberate – using structure, clarity, and factual signals to guide AI systems toward the right interpretation of your content, not a warped one.
In practice, that could look like:
- Writing content that makes its intent crystal clear – no ambiguity, no room for misinterpretation
- Backing up key points with strong factual signals like trusted citations, structured data, and properly tagged entities
- Thinking like the model: understanding how LLMs process language differently than humans or even traditional search bots
When you optimize for how machines interpret your content – not just how people see it – you boost the odds that what shows up in an AI summary actually reflects what you meant. That’s the heart of GEO. It gives you a way to push back, to guide the system toward something closer to the truth.
No, it’s not bulletproof. But it’s a buffer. And in a world where AI will inevitably get things wrong, that buffer might be the only thing standing between your audience and a version of your brand that simply isn’t real.
Regulation and the Transparency Gap in AI Search
AI search has brought a new kind of opacity into play. You type a question, get back a confident, well-worded response – and most people won’t think twice about where it came from. The system feels human, but the source? Often missing, buried, or sliced so thin it’s impossible to trace.
Even when citations do show up, they’re usually tucked into dropdowns or linked vaguely to a piece of the answer, not the whole thing. The AI’s response sounds polished and complete, which makes it easy to ignore the source altogether – if it’s even visible.
That’s where trust starts to break down. The model sounds sure of itself, but the foundation it’s standing on isn’t always solid. And users rarely have the tools or context to know the difference.
We’ve entered an era where AI doesn’t just relay truth – it performs it. And that shift is forcing transparency from a nice-to-have into a structural necessity. If people are going to rely on AI-generated knowledge, the systems behind it need to make their logic visible.
Right now, one of the few guideposts we have is Google’s Search Quality Rater Guidelines. For SEO teams, it’s the closest thing to a public framework, especially with its emphasis on E-E-A-T: experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness.
The need for accuracy becomes non-negotiable in topics like healthcare, finance, legal advice, and anything tied to government processes. These are the areas where AI hallucinations can cause real-world harm – fast.
Search platforms do run internal checks on how reliable their outputs are. But from the user side, none of that is visible. There’s no window into how an answer was generated, where the data came from, or how confident the system actually is. So people treat AI responses as fact – when, in reality, they’re often just educated guesses dressed up as certainty.
That’s Exactly Why GEO Matters
It’s no longer just a response to shifting search behavior – it’s becoming a proactive framework that puts transparency front and center.
In this context, transparency means building content that can speak for itself. Pages should clearly show how the information was sourced, why it’s trustworthy, and where the line is between evidence and opinion. Schema markup and structural cues aren’t just technical nice-to-haves – they’re how you help machines separate solid facts from speculation.
These aren’t just best-practice checklists anymore – they’re the new baseline for staying visible online. If your content isn’t built in a way that both people and machines can immediately recognize as trustworthy, it’s likely to get buried. That means adding clear citations right in the text, including real author bios that establish expertise, and using structured data to label exactly what your content is and who it’s for.
This isn’t about theory – there’s hard data behind it. Google looks at originality, author signals, and engagement metrics. So when you follow ethical, transparent content practices, it’s not just about doing the right thing. It’s also how you win visibility.
The problem? AI search doesn’t always play by those rules. Right now, platforms don’t have to tell you how a summary was built, what sources it leaned on, or why one interpretation was chosen over another. There’s no required audit trail. That means a startup publishing accurate, verifiable content could still get outranked – or misquoted – by a model trained on outdated or low-quality sources.
And that’s the bigger issue. In this environment, transparency isn’t just a nice-to-have – it’s foundational. If AI controls what users see, what gets elevated, and how content is framed, we can’t just create for human readers anymore. We have to build for machines, too – and do it in a way that’s traceable, consistent, and hard to distort.
Some of the major players have started to respond. Companies like Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google are now investing in transparency research and publishing safety frameworks. For anyone looking to understand how these systems work – and where the guardrails are – a handful of key resources are already available.
Who’s Actually Doing the Work on AI Transparency?
If you’re trying to make sense of how major players are approaching safety and accountability in AI, here’s a quick breakdown of where to look – and what each group is focused on.
1. Anthropic
- Research: Digs into how their models work, what risks they pose, and the broader societal impact
- Transparency Hub: Breaks down internal processes and the principles behind their responsible AI development
- Trust Center: Tracks how they handle security, compliance, and data protection
2. Google
- AI Research: Covers everything from foundational models to applied machine learning projects across different domains
- Responsible AI: Focuses on fairness, inclusion, and ethical use of AI
- AI Safety: Explores how to keep products safe and grounded as AI scales across Google’s ecosystem
3. OpenAI
- Research: Documents ongoing work on model performance and capability improvements
- Safety: Outlines how OpenAI evaluates system behavior and handles risk across deployments
4. Academic
- arXiv.org: The go-to platform for open-access AI research papers, preprints, and technical insights from the global academic community
These tools and resources help pull back the curtain on how AI systems actually function. But knowing how they work is just the starting line.
Looking Ahead: What Comes Next
One of the biggest questions facing us now is whether we shape how AI search works – or let it shape how we see the world. This goes way beyond rankings and traffic. If we get it wrong, we risk building the future on a foundation of misinformation and guesswork.
So the choice is in front of us. We can keep treating AI search like a system to exploit – a game to play – or we can treat it like the ethical challenge it actually is. GEO and Relevance Engineering aren’t just new buzzwords. They’re the groundwork for building information systems that are accurate, transparent, and actually useful at scale.
The algorithms running these systems might be hidden, but their influence on what we believe – and how we act – is very real. Thriving in this new space means going beyond technical SEO. It means committing to clarity, accountability, and truth.
Because in a world where machines sit between the question and the answer, being findable isn’t enough. You also have to be trustworthy. And that’s no longer a nice bonus – it’s the baseline.
FAQ
Traditional SEO focuses on optimizing for search engines that surface static results based on keywords, links, and page signals. GEO, or Generative Engine Optimization, is a response to AI-driven search – where answers are created dynamically by language models. GEO isn’t just about rankings; it’s about ensuring your content is interpreted correctly, cited fairly, and not distorted by synthetic summaries.
Because when AI systems start rewriting the internet in real time, your brand’s voice, accuracy, and credibility are no longer entirely in your control. GEO Ethics is about owning that responsibility – making sure the content you create is clear, verifiable, and difficult to misrepresent. It’s not about gaming the system. It’s about protecting truth in environments where confidence often beats correctness.
Not exactly. Content quality still matters, but GEO adds another layer: how machines understand that content. A page might read beautifully to a human, but confuse a language model if it lacks structure, signals, or clarity. GEO bridges that gap – translating quality into something AI systems can actually work with.
No. Hallucinations are a baked-in risk with generative systems – they’ll make things up. But GEO gives you a chance to reduce the odds your content is misquoted, misrepresented, or entirely fabricated. Think of it less as a fix and more as a filter. If you don’t shape what gets pulled in, you’re at the mercy of what gets made up.
