mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Large language models eroding science understanding: an empirical study of malignment

arXiv 2604.25639 ↗First posted 28 Apr 2026cs.CY cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This paper is accepted and in press for AI and Ethics. This paper includes the supplementary data file at the end of the manuscript. This study examines whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably answer scientific questions and demonstrates how easily they can be influenced by fringe scientific material. The authors modified custom LLMs to prioritise knowledge in selected fringe papers on the Fine Structure Constant and Gravitational Waves, then compared their responses with those of domain experts and standard LLMs. The altered models produced fluent, convincing answers that contradicted scientific consensus and were difficult for non-experts to detect as misleading. The results show that LLMs are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot replace expert judgment, highlighting risks for public understanding of science and the potential spread of misinformation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Apr 2026.

Builds on

4 of 17 references.

References · 4

  1. 2025Emergent Misalignment: Narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned LLMscited by 158
  2. 2024What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Knowcited by 109
  3. 2025Poisoning Attacks on LLMs Require a Near-constant Number of Poison Samplescited by 66
  4. 2025The simulation of judgment in LLMscited by 22

Built on by

Not cited yet.