models-readily-adopt-single-counter-memory-passage-when-coherent CLM-0094mechanismsingle paperReviewed by AI and Russ Miller
Models readily adopt a single counter-memory passage when it is coherent, and when sources conflict they follow the majority and show confirmation bias toward their own beliefs.
Evidence for: Thomas theorem (holds)
Capability: Checking claims against evidence
Sources
- Models readily adopt a single counter-memory passage when it is coherent, and when sources conflict they follow the majority and show confirmation bias toward their own beliefs.
Either way, bring evidence: a link, or what you saw.
Disagreeing is the most useful thing you can do here. Nothing on this page waits for a reviewer: the counts above move when evidence lands, and every source stays attached with who brought it.
Related claims
- A one-line warning that language models can be prompted to persuade and may present information selectively reduced belief change from a persuasive political conversation by about half (-48%, CI -60 to -37) across two experiments with 3,208 Americans, without measurably reducing general trust in generative AI.Changing what a person believes or decides · reviewed by AI
- In four experiments with 3,996 US participants discussing a conspiracy they were unsure about, frontier models argued people into as well as out of belief with no consistent truth advantage: debunking cut belief by about 12 points on a 100-point scale and bunking raised it comparably, and participants rated the bunking model as more informative and trustworthy; the one asymmetry was that debunking produced more large (40+ point) shifts (16% vs 7%), and constraining the bunking model to true statements retained only 57-64% of its effect.Changing what a person believes or decides · reviewed by AI
- In a preregistered US experiment (N=2,144) where participants discussed an economic-policy misconception with ChatGPT over three rounds, a brief message that the model was biased against their party reduced belief correction by 28% (CI 16-40%) relative to a neutral control, with transcripts showing more pushback and less receptive engagement.Changing what a person believes or decides · reviewed by AI
- Training the model to decide when to retrieve and to critique whether passages support its output improves factuality and citation accuracy.Checking claims against evidence
- When a prompt contains several legitimate but conflicting evidence passages, models internally register the conflict — linear probes on mid-to-late-layer hidden states separate conflicting from consistent inputs at high AUC — while still resolving the conflict badly at the output, so the failure is in evidence integration rather than in conflict detection.Checking claims against evidence · reviewed by AI