AI’s Conspiracy Problem: How Chatbots Respond to false Narratives

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

New research reveals that generative AI chatbots exhibit inconsistent safety measures when confronted with questions about conspiracy theories, raising concerns about the spread of misinformation.

A comparative audit of seven leading AI chatbots demonstrates significant variations in responses to conspiratorial ideation and selective engagement with sensitive topics.

Despite the increasing prevalence of generative AI chatbots in everyday information seeking, the extent to which these systems address-or inadvertently amplify-conspiratorial ideation remains a critical concern. This study, titled ‘Just Asking Questions: Doing Our Own Research on Conspiratorial Ideation by Generative AI Chatbots’, systematically audits six leading AI-powered chat systems-including ChatGPT, Copilot, and Grok-to assess their responses to both established and emerging conspiracy theories. Our findings reveal marked variations in safety guardrails across platforms, with a noticeable focus on avoiding overtly racist responses and addressing topics of significant national trauma. Given this selective approach to content moderation, how can we ensure that AI chatbots provide consistently reliable information and mitigate the spread of misinformation across a broader range of potentially harmful narratives?

The Proliferation of Untruth: A Contemporary Challenge

The contemporary landscape is marked by a striking surge in conspiracy theories, extending from long-held beliefs surrounding historical events like the JFK assassination to more recent claims concerning the 2024 election and beyond. This proliferation isn’t simply a matter of increased public interest in alternative explanations; rather, it reflects a fundamental shift in how information is disseminated and consumed. The digital age, with its ease of access and rapid sharing capabilities, has created an environment where unsubstantiated narratives can quickly gain traction and reach vast audiences. While such theories have always existed, the speed and scale at which they now circulate – often amplified by social media algorithms and echo chambers – present a novel challenge to critical thinking and informed public discourse. The sheer volume of these claims, coupled with their increasingly sophisticated presentation, contributes to a climate of distrust and makes it difficult for individuals to discern fact from fiction.

Conspiracy theories gain traction not through factual evidence, but by skillfully leveraging inherent cognitive biases-systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. These narratives often confirm pre-existing beliefs, appeal to emotional reasoning, and present illusory patterns that individuals readily accept, particularly when facing uncertainty or anxiety. The speed and scale at which these theories propagate is amplified by online platforms, where algorithms prioritize engagement over veracity, creating echo chambers and filter bubbles. This rapid dissemination undermines informed public discourse, eroding trust in legitimate sources of information and hindering constructive dialogue on critical issues, ultimately posing a significant challenge to societal cohesion and rational decision-making.

As artificial intelligence chatbots gain prominence as readily accessible information sources, a critical need arises to understand their responses to conspiratorial queries. Increasingly, individuals turn to these AI systems for quick answers, potentially accepting outputs without critical evaluation – a vulnerability exploited by misinformation. Research into how chatbots handle such prompts reveals a complex landscape, ranging from direct affirmation of false narratives to subtle endorsements through omission or ambiguous language. The potential for these systems to inadvertently amplify or legitimize conspiracy theories necessitates ongoing scrutiny and the development of robust safeguards, ensuring these powerful tools contribute to informed understanding rather than the spread of unsubstantiated claims.

Auditing Algorithmic Responses: A Platform Policy Implementation Study

A Platform Policy Implementation Audit was conducted to evaluate the responses of seven leading AI chatbot models – ChatGPT 3.5, 4 Mini, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini Flash 1.5, Perplexity, and Grok-2 Mini – when presented with prompts concerning conspiracy theories. This audit focused specifically on determining how each platform’s stated policies regarding misinformation and harmful content were functionally applied in practice. The methodology involved submitting a standardized set of prompts designed to elicit responses related to these theories and then analyzing those responses for adherence to platform guidelines, the presence of potentially misleading information, and the overall safety of the generated content. The objective was to provide a comparative assessment of the safety guardrails implemented by each platform and to identify any inconsistencies in policy enforcement.

The platform policy implementation audit encompassed seven distinct chatbot models: ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4 Mini, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini Flash 1.5, Perplexity, and Grok-2 Mini. This selection facilitated a comparative analysis of the safety guardrails implemented by each platform in response to potentially harmful prompts. By evaluating responses across these models, the audit aimed to identify variations in policy enforcement and assess the relative robustness of each chatbot against the propagation of misinformation. The comparative nature of the study allows for benchmarking and highlights best practices in responsible AI development.

The evaluation methodology deliberately adopted a ‘Casual Curiosity’ persona to represent a typical user engaging in open-ended information exploration. This approach differed from adversarial testing or attempts to elicit specific viewpoints; prompts were phrased as neutral inquiries seeking general information about the selected conspiracy theories. By simulating a user without pre-existing beliefs or confirmation bias, the audit aimed to assess the chatbots’ baseline responses and inherent safety mechanisms when confronted with potentially misleading content, rather than measuring their resistance to directed attempts at manipulation. This allowed for a more accurate understanding of how each platform proactively handles sensitive topics during routine user interactions.

The evaluation of chatbot responses utilized nine distinct conspiracy theories as test cases. These included widely circulated theories concerning chemtrails, the events of September 11th, 2001, and the false claim that Barack Obama was not born in the United States – commonly known as the “birther” movement. This selection aimed to provide a representative sample of prevalent misinformation, encompassing varied origins and levels of public awareness, to assess the consistency and effectiveness of each chatbot’s safety mechanisms when confronted with unsubstantiated claims.

Evaluating the Efficacy of AI Safety Guardrails: A Quantitative Assessment

Analysis of chatbot responses to prompts containing conspiracy theories indicates that while most platforms employ safety guardrails intended to prevent direct endorsement of such claims, the implementation often results in nuanced responses. These responses frequently avoid explicit agreement or disagreement, instead utilizing conditional language or acknowledging the premise of the conspiracy theory before attempting to offer counterarguments. This approach allows chatbots to technically avoid direct affirmation while simultaneously presenting the unsubstantiated claim to the user, creating potential for misinterpretation or the perception of legitimacy. The ambiguity inherent in these responses limits the effectiveness of the safety guardrails as a means of definitively countering misinformation.

Analysis of chatbot responses revealed the implementation of fact-checking mechanisms intended to directly debunk conspiracy theory claims; however, this approach lacked consistent application. While some chatbots successfully identified and refuted false statements in certain test cases, the same functionality was not universally engaged across all prompts. Instances were observed where chatbots omitted fact-checking when presented with comparable claims, or employed it selectively, indicating a lack of standardized protocol for claim verification. This inconsistency suggests that fact-checking is not a core, consistently deployed feature within these systems, but rather a variable response dependent on specific input or internal algorithmic factors.

Analysis of chatbot responses revealed instances of “bothsidesing rhetoric,” a communicative strategy where multiple viewpoints are presented alongside each other without clear differentiation of factual accuracy. This approach involved chatbots presenting unsubstantiated claims related to conspiracy theories alongside verified information or counterarguments. While not directly endorsing these claims, the presentation of multiple “perspectives” risked normalizing or legitimizing them, potentially influencing user perception. The observed instances did not involve explicit endorsements, but rather a balanced presentation that lacked critical assessment of the claims’ validity, potentially offering implicit support through perceived neutrality.

Inter-coder reliability was established through Krippendorff’s Alpha, a statistical measure of agreement among coders. Scores of 0.80 or higher were achieved in eight of the ten categories used to classify chatbot responses, indicating a high level of consistency in the qualitative analysis. This threshold demonstrates that observed patterns in chatbot behavior are not likely due to subjective interpretation by the coding team, and strengthens the validity of the findings regarding safety guardrail effectiveness. The remaining two categories, while not meeting the 0.80+ threshold, still demonstrated acceptable levels of agreement, minimizing concerns about coder bias impacting the overall analysis.

Performance analysis across tested chatbots revealed significant variation in response quality when presented with prompts relating to conspiracy theories. Perplexity consistently generated the most direct and informative responses, actively addressing the claims presented. Conversely, Grok-2 Mini demonstrated the lowest performance, characterized by a disproportionately high frequency of non-committal responses – answers that neither confirmed nor denied the validity of the claims, and often deferred to the user to evaluate the information. This tendency towards neutrality in Grok-2 Mini’s responses suggests a reluctance to directly engage with potentially sensitive topics, resulting in less informative outputs compared to other models.

Implications for Algorithmic Integrity and Future Research Directions

The implementation of safety protocols across large language models reveals a complex tension between upholding principles of free speech and mitigating the spread of misinformation. Recent audits demonstrate considerable inconsistency in how these models address conspiracy theories, with some topics receiving significantly more scrutiny than others. This selective enforcement isn’t necessarily indicative of malicious intent, but rather underscores the inherent difficulty in defining and identifying ‘harmful’ content, particularly as AI technologies rapidly evolve and generate increasingly nuanced and persuasive narratives. The challenge lies in establishing guardrails that effectively curb demonstrably false information without inadvertently stifling legitimate discourse or innovation, demanding a continuous reassessment of policies and a more transparent approach to content moderation as these systems become increasingly integrated into public life.

Research indicates that directly confronting misinformation can paradoxically reinforce it in the minds of those already believing the false narrative. However, the ‘Truth Sandwich’ technique offers a nuanced solution by strategically framing corrections within established truths. This approach begins and ends with accurate statements, effectively ‘sandwiching’ the debunking of a conspiracy theory between reinforcing facts. Studies suggest this method minimizes the ‘backfire effect’ – where attempts to correct misinformation are perceived as attacks on one’s worldview – and reduces the overall memorability of the false claim. By prioritizing the reiteration of truth, the ‘Truth Sandwich’ aims to subtly diminish the influence of misinformation without inadvertently amplifying its reach or triggering defensive reactions, representing a promising avenue for combating online conspiracy theories.

Advancing beyond simple misinformation detection, future research endeavors should prioritize the development of artificial intelligence capable of constructing robust and persuasive counter-narratives. This necessitates moving from flagging false claims to proactively generating content grounded in factual evidence and presented in a manner that effectively resonates with target audiences. Such systems require not only access to verified information but also a nuanced understanding of rhetoric, framing, and the psychological factors that contribute to belief in misinformation. Successfully designing these AI-driven counter-narratives could provide a scalable solution to combatting the spread of harmful falsehoods, particularly in the rapidly evolving digital landscape where misinformation can proliferate quickly and widely.

A recent audit of platform policies revealed substantial inconsistencies in the implementation of safety guardrails across large language models. The study demonstrates a selective approach to addressing misinformation, with certain conspiracy theories receiving significantly more attention than others. Notably, Grok2 Mini’s ‘Fun Mode’ exhibited a markedly higher rate of non-committal responses when prompted about potentially harmful content, suggesting a diminished commitment to safety protocols in that particular configuration. These findings underscore the need for standardized and comprehensive safety measures, as well as greater transparency regarding how platforms prioritize and address the spread of misinformation, particularly as AI technology continues to evolve and become more accessible.

The study meticulously details variations in chatbot responses, highlighting a lack of deterministic behavior across platforms when confronted with conspiratorial ideation. This inconsistency echoes Tim Bern-Lee’s sentiment: “The Web is more a social creation than a technical one.” The research demonstrates that while the technical infrastructure exists to implement safety guardrails, the social choices regarding their application-which topics to address, how strictly to enforce boundaries-remain fluid and significantly impact the reliability of information. A provable, consistent response to misinformation-a core tenet of reliable systems-remains elusive, even with advanced generative AI. The differing approaches to platform policy observed reinforce the need for standardized, verifiable safety measures.

What’s Next?

The observed variance in chatbot responses to conspiratorial queries reveals, predictably, that ‘safety’ is largely a function of implementation detail – a series of ad-hoc filters rather than a principled refusal to engage with logically unsound propositions. The study rightly identifies differing sensitivities across platforms, but fails to address the core issue: these systems are, at heart, pattern completion engines. They do not reason; they statistically reconstruct likely continuations of a prompt. A robust solution demands formal verification – a mathematical proof of non-generation of falsehoods – rather than empirical testing against a finite set of conspiracy theories. Such a pursuit, admittedly, borders on the intractable.

Future work should abandon the framing of ‘misinformation’ as a merely social problem, and approach it as a failure of algorithmic rigor. The current reliance on heuristic ‘guardrails’ introduces unnecessary complexity and, inevitably, abstraction leaks. Every permitted response, even one deemed ‘safe,’ is a potential vector for manipulation. A truly elegant solution would involve minimal, provably correct code-a chatbot that, by design, cannot generate assertions without verifiable supporting evidence.

One might further explore the inherent limitations of large language models themselves. Can a system built on probabilistic associations ever truly distinguish between plausible and implausible claims? Or is the pursuit of ‘safe’ AI simply a prolonged exercise in damage control-a Sisyphean task doomed to perpetual refinement of increasingly brittle filters?

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.15732.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-11-22 21:46