Generative Models Erode Human Temporal Learning Through Market Selection

The reliability of AI generative models is typically measured by output correctness, yet in practice it depends on the effort required to verify those outputs. We argue that current evaluation metrics overlook a critical failure mode: Verification-Cost Errors (VCEs), defined as incorrect input-output pairs that a declared fraction of the verifier population fails to identify within the verification budget available in a given deployment context. Unlike standard notions of "hallucination", VCEs are defined operationally, by the failure of correct identification within budget rather than by any property of the output itself. Plausibility and authoritative presentation are hypothesised contributors to that failure, not defining conditions. To capture this asymmetry, we introduce the notion of verification cost relative to a deployment budget as an operational dimension that current evaluation does not routinely capture. The quantity is presented as a conceptual instrument rather than a finalized metric. Evidence from code generation and multi-modal document understanding shows that high benchmark accuracy can mask significant verification effort in practice. We therefore take the position that correctness alone is insufficient as a measure of reliability. AI evaluation should explicitly account for verification cost, reflecting whether errors can be detected under realistic resource constraints.

Language models are becoming the default interface to factual knowledge, yet they often verify outputs more reliably than they generate them. This generation-verification gap (GV-gap) underlies many recent advances in self-improvement and reasoning, but its dynamics on factual knowledge specifically remain poorly understood. We focus on the training mechanisms underlying factual GV-gaps, distinguishing them from their computational and aesthetic counterparts. We trace generation and verification capabilities through three training phases (acquisition, continual learning, and updating) across four open-source model families at two scales each. Three findings recur across models: (i) verification is consistently learned before generation; (ii) verification is more robust to continual learning than generation; and (iii) factual updates can leave models in a "multi-verse" state, simultaneously verifying both old and new answers as correct. Natural experiments on frontier models reproduce these dynamics at scale and reveal residual verification biases on well-covered facts.

Generative-AI evaluations can become historical before publication, yet calendar age does not affect every conclusion equally. This paper has two linked purposes. First, it audits a maximum-variation purposive corpus of 40 empirical records appearing between 18 July 2025 and 17 July 2026. The audit coded publication route, execution timing, model identity, age of the newest named generation or immutable snapshot, same-family supersession and refresh behaviour. At appearance, the newest named model was a median 281 days old (middle 50%: 75-478; range: 11-939). Median age was 395 days for 25 journal articles, 56 days for 14 preprints and 49 days for one laboratory report. Thirty-five records included a superseded family, seven supplied a precise dated identifier, three clearly refreshed model evidence, and one added a late sensitivity test. All 40 included an OpenAI system, a feature of this corpus rather than a prevalence estimate. The paper distinguishes model age from claim currency and proposes six reporting practices. Second, it treats its own two-day production process as a reflexive case of frontier-model-assisted research creation. GPT-5.6 Sol Pro in ChatGPT supported candidate discovery, source reconciliation, calculations, drafting and critique; the author checked sources, made all substantive decisions and accepts responsibility. This is a proof-of-practice, not a controlled estimate of productivity or quality. By applying its own Model Facts and model-currency statement, the paper shows how rapid AI-assisted research can be made inspectable without treating model output as independent validation. The title uses half-lives metaphorically; no universal decay rate is estimated.