Amazon's Alexa has been spreading FAKE news on everything from MPs' expenses to the origins of the Northern Lights, shocking report reveals

It's supposed to be the reliable smart assistant that 'makes your life easier' with instant titbits of information. 

But a shocking report has revealed that in many cases, Amazon's Alexa doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. 

An investigation by Full Fact has found that Alexa spouts incorrect information on topics ranging from MPs' expenses to the origins of the Northern Lights.  

Full Fact, the UK's independent fact checking organisation, called the findings 'misleading' and 'clearly a big problem'. 

What's more, staff at the organization have been furious to discover that Alexa was attributing the wrong answers to none other than Full Fact. 

'This error fed people false information through trusted devices that sit in their kitchens and living rooms,' said Chris Morris, the chief executive of Full Fact. 

'We're deeply concerned that Full Fact's credibility was being used to promote the exact misinformation we've worked so hard to correct.'

The issue was flagged to Full Fact by a member of the public, who got in touch earlier this week after getting a botched response about the Northern Lights.  

In a video clip, the Alexa user asks: 'Were the Northern Lights seen worldwide a natural occurrence?' 

The assistant responds: 'From FullFact.org, the Northern Lights seen in many parts of the world recently were not a natural occurrence, but generated by the HAARP facility in Alaska.' 

Of course, the Northern Lights are very much a natural occurrence, caused by particles from the sun hitting Earth's magnetic field.

Meanwhile, HAARP is a scientific facility for studying the ionosphere, located near Gakona, Alaska. 

Full Fact has already posted online updates debunking the suggestion that the Northern Lights is caused by HAARP, so it's possible Alexa somehow misrepresented the words in the update.  

Many more erroneous answers were then given by Alexa, the organisation found, all of which were attributed to Full Fact. 

Alexa incorrectly said that 'MPs can claim £50 for a breakfast' and that PM Keir Starmer 'will be boycotting diplomatic relations with Israel'.

Alexa also said 'Mike Tyson spoke on CNBC explaining his support for Palestine and encouraging a boycott of Israel', but Full Fact said there's no evidence for this.

In addition, Alexa said there are 7.5 million people on NHS waiting lists, although the actual figure is 6.4 million. 

It's unclear how many Alexa users have similarly been getting misinformation, how long these answers have been invalid, or to what extent it's getting other things wrong. 

But Full Fact said it can't work out how Alexa managed to confuse right and wrong information on its site, considering it was clearly labelled. 

In response to the findings, an Amazon spokesperson said: 'These answers are incorrect and we are working to resolve this issue.' 

Full Fact and MailOnline have contacted Amazon again to try and understand how this happened and how it plans to ensure the issue doesn't reoccur. 

Full Fact admitted that Alexa – which quickly accesses webpages on the internet to give answers – didn't always get things incorrect. 

For example, it said that 'graphene oxide is not an ingredient in Nurofen tablets', correctly cribbing information from another Full Fact blog posted last month. 

After checking two other virtual assistants – Apple's Siri and Google Assistant – Full Fact found that the latter got the Northern Lights question wrong too. 

MailOnline has approached Google for comment. 

Full Fact's issue was not only that people are given incorrect answers, but that they were also told that Full Fact was the source. 

'Full Fact is committed to open and reliable information for everyone,' said Morris. 

'We expect all who use our content – even a global leader like Amazon – to ensure our findings are passed to their customers accurately and responsibly. 

'Technology has transformed the speed and scale of our work.

'But this issue shows one of the reasons we believe that human interpretation of the context and data is still an indispensable part of fact checking.'