Science
Why AI is better than humans at talking people out of their conspiracy theory beliefs
Roughly half of Americans subscribe to to some sort of conspiracy theory, and their fellow humans haven’t had much success coaxing them out of their rabbit holes.
Perhaps they could learn a thing or two from an AI-powered chatbot.
In a series of experiments, the artificial chatbot was able to make more than a quarter of people feel uncertain about their most cherished conspiracy belief. The average conversation lasted less than 8½ minutes.
The results were reported Thursday in the journal Science.
The failure of facts to convince people that we really did land on the moon, that Al Qaeda really was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and that President Biden really did win the 2020 election, among other things, has fueled anxiety about a post-truth era that favors personal beliefs over objective evidence.
“People who believe in conspiracy theories rarely, if ever, change their mind,” said study leader Thomas Costello, a psychologist at American University who investigates political and social beliefs. “In some sense, it feels better to believe that there’s a secret society controlling everything than believing that entropy and chaos rule.”
But the study suggests the problem isn’t with the persuasive power of facts — it’s our inability to marshal the right combination of facts to counter someone’s specific reasons for skepticism.
Costello and his colleagues attributed the chatbot’s success to the detailed, customized arguments it prepared for each of the 2,190 study participants it engaged with.
For instance, a person who doubted that the twin towers could have been brought down by airplanes because jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel was informed that the fuel reaches temperatures as high as 1,832 degrees, enough for steel to lose its structural integrity and trigger a collapse.
A person who didn’t believe Lee Harvey Oswald had the skills to assassinate President John F. Kennedy was told that Oswald had been a sharpshooter in the Marines and wouldn’t have had much trouble firing an accurate shot from about 90 yards away.
And a person who believed Princess Diana was killed so Prince Charles could remarry was reminded of the 8-year gap between Diana’s fatal car accident and the future king’s second wedding, undermining the argument that the two events were related.
The findings suggest that “any type of belief that people hold that is not based in good evidence could be shifted,” said study co-author Gordon Pennycook, a cognitive psychologist at Cornell University.
“It’s really validating to know that evidence does matter,” he said.
The researchers began by asking Americans to rate the degree to which they subscribed to 15 common conspiracy theories, including that the virus responsible for COVID-19 was created by the Chinese government and that the U.S. military has been hiding evidence of a UFO landing in Roswell, N.M. After performing an unrelated task, participants were asked to describe a conspiracy theory they found particularly compelling and explain why they believed it.
The request prompted 72% of them to share their feelings about a conspiracy theory. Among this group, 60% were randomly assigned to discuss it with the large language model GPT-4 Turbo.
The conversations began with the chatbot summarizing the human’s description of the conspiracy theory. Then the human rated the degree to which he or she agreed with the summary on a scale from 0 to 100.
From there, the chatbot set about making the case that there was nothing fishy going on. To make sure it wasn’t stretching the truth in order to be more persuasive, the researchers hired a professional fact-checker to evaluate 128 of the bot’s claims about a variety of conspiracies. One was judged to be misleading, and the rest were true.
The bot also turned up the charm. In one case, it praised a participant for “critically examining historical events” while reminding them that “it’s vital to distinguish between what could theoretically be possible and what is supported by evidence.”
Each conversation included three rounds of evidence from the chatbot, followed by a response from the human. (You can try it yourself here.) Afterward, the participants revisited their summarized conspiracy statements. Their ratings of agreement dropped by an average of 21%.
In 27% of cases, the drop was large enough for the researchers to say the person “became uncertain of their conspiracy belief.”
Meanwhile, the 40% of participants who served as controls also got summaries of their preferred conspiracy theory and scored them on the 0-to-100 scale. Then they talked with the chatbot about neutral topics, like the U.S. medical system or the relative merits of cats and dogs. When these people were asked to reconsider their conspiracy theory summaries, their ratings fell by just 1%, on average.
The researchers checked in with people 10 days and 2 months later to see if the effects had worn off. They hadn’t.
The team repeated the experiment with another group and asked people about their conspiracy-theory beliefs in a more roundabout way. This time, discussing their chosen theory with the bot prompted a 19.4% decrease in their rating, compared with a 2.9% decrease for those who chatted about something else.
The conversations “really fundamentally changed people’s minds,” said co-author David Rand, a computational social scientist at MIT who studies how people make decisions.
“The effect didn’t vary significantly based on which conspiracy was named and discussed,” Rand said. “It worked for classic conspiracies like the JFK assassination and moon landing hoaxes and Illuminati, stuff like that. And it also worked for modern, more politicized conspiracies like those involving 2020 election fraud or COVID-19.”
What’s more, being challenged by the AI chatbot about one conspiracy theory prompted people to become more skeptical about others. After their conversations, their affinity for the 15 common theories fell significantly more than it did for people in the control group.
“It was making people less generally conspiratorial,” Rand said. “It also increased their intentions to do things like ignore or block social media accounts sharing conspiracies, or, you know, argue with people who are espousing those conspiracy theories.”
In another encouraging sign, the bot was unable to talk people out of beliefs in conspiracies that were actually true, such as the CIA’s covert MK-Ultra project that used unwitting subjects to test whether drugs, torture or brainwashing could enhance interrogations. In some cases, the chatbot discussions made people believe these conspiracies even more.
“It wasn’t like mind control, just, you know, making people do whatever it wants,” Rand said. “It was essentially following facts.”
Researchers who weren’t involved in the study called it a welcome advance.
In an essay that accompanied the study, psychologist Bence Bago of Tilberg University in the Netherlands and cognitive psychologist Jean-Francois Bonnefon of the Toulouse School of Economics in France said the experiments show that “a scalable intervention to recalibrate misinformed beliefs may be within reach.”
But they also raised several concerns, including whether it would work on a conspiracy theory that’s so new there aren’t many facts for an AI bot to draw from.
The researchers took a first pass at testing this the week after the July 13 assassination attempt on former President Trump. After helping the AI program find credible information about the attack, they found that talking with the chatbot reduced people’s belief in assassination-related conspiracy theories by 6 or 7 percentage points, which Costello called “a noticeable effect.”
Bago and Bonnefon also questioned whether conspiracy theorists would be willing to engage with a bot. Rand said he didn’t think that would be an insurmountable problem.
“One thing that’s an advantage here is that conspiracy theorists often aren’t embarrassed about their beliefs,” he said. “You could imagine just going to conspiracy forums and inviting people to do their own research by talking to the chatbot.”
Rand also suggested buying ads on search engines so that when someone types a query about, say, the “deep state,” they’ll see an invitation to discuss it with an AI chatbot.
Robbie Sutton, a social psychologist at the University of Kent in England who studies why people embrace conspiracy beliefs, called the new work “an important step forward.” But he noted that most people in the study persisted in their beliefs despite receiving “high-quality, factual rebuttals” from a “highly competent and respectful chatbot.”
“Seen this way, there is more resistance than there is open-mindedness,” he said.
Sutton added that the findings don’t shed much light on what draws people to conspiracy theories in the first place.
“Interventions like this are essentially an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff,” he said. “We need to focus more of our efforts on what happens at the top of the cliff.”
Science
FDA sets limits for lead in many baby foods as California disclosure law takes effect
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration this week set maximum levels for lead in baby foods such as jarred fruits and vegetables, yogurts and dry cereal, part of an effort to cut young kids’ exposure to the toxic metal that causes developmental and neurological problems.
The agency issued final guidance that it estimated could reduce lead exposure from processed baby foods by about 20% to 30%. The limits are voluntary, not mandatory, for food manufacturers, but they allow the FDA to take enforcement action if foods exceed the levels.
It’s part of the FDA’s ongoing effort to “reduce dietary exposure to contaminants, including lead, in foods to as low as possible over time, while maintaining access to nutritious foods,” the agency said in a statement.
Consumer advocates, who have long sought limits on lead in children’s foods, welcomed the guidance first proposed two years ago, but said it didn’t go far enough.
“FDA’s actions today are a step forward and will help protect children,” said Thomas Galligan, a scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “However, the agency took too long to act and ignored important public input that could have strengthened these standards.”
The new limits on lead for children younger than 2 don’t cover grain-based snacks such as puffs and teething biscuits, which some research has shown contain higher levels of lead. And they don’t limit other metals such as cadmium that have been detected in baby foods.
The FDA’s announcement comes just one week after a new California law took effect that requires baby food makers selling products in California to provide a QR code on their packaging to take consumers to monthly test results for the presence in their product of four heavy metals: lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium.
The change, required under a law passed by the California Legislature in 2023, will affect consumers nationwide. Because companies are unlikely to create separate packaging for the California market, QR codes are likely to appear on products sold across the country, and consumers everywhere will be able to view the heavy metal concentrations.
Although companies are required to start printing new packaging and publishing test results of products manufactured beginning in January, it may take time for the products to hit grocery shelves.
The law was inspired by a 2021 congressional investigation that found dangerously high levels of heavy metals in packaged foods marketed for babies and toddlers. Baby foods and their ingredients had up to 91 times the arsenic level, up to 177 times the lead level, up to 69 times the cadmium level, and up to five times the mercury level that the U.S. allows to be present in bottled or drinking water, the investigation found.
There’s no safe level of lead exposure for children, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The metal causes “well-documented health effects,” including brain and nervous system damage and slowed growth and development. However, lead occurs naturally in some foods and comes from pollutants in air, water and soil, which can make it impossible to eliminate entirely.
The FDA guidance sets a lead limit of 10 parts per billion for fruits, most vegetables, grain and meat mixtures, yogurts, custards and puddings and single-ingredient meats. It sets a limit of 20 parts per billion for single-ingredient root vegetables and for dry infant cereals. The guidance covers packaged processed foods sold in jars, pouches, tubs or boxes.
Jaclyn Bowen, executive director of the Clean Label Project, an organization that certifies baby foods as having low levels of toxic substances, said consumers can use the new FDA guidance in tandem with the new California law: The FDA, she said, has provided parents a “hard and fast number” to consider a benchmark when looking at the new monthly test results.
But Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports, called the FDA limits “virtually meaningless because they’re based more on industry feasibility and not on what would best protect public health.” A product with a lead level of 10 parts per billion is “still too high for baby food. What we’ve heard from a lot of these manufacturers is they are testing well below that number.”
The new FDA guidance comes more than a year after lead-tainted pouches of apple cinnamon puree sickened more than 560 children in the U.S. between October 2023 and April 2024, according to the CDC.
The levels of lead detected in those products were more than 2,000 times higher than the FDA’s maximum. Officials stressed that the agency doesn’t need guidance to take action on foods that violate the law.
Aleccia writes for the Associated Press. Gold reports for The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.
Science
NASA punts Mars Sample Return decision to the next administration
Anyone hoping for a clear path forward this year for NASA’s imperiled Mars Sample Return mission will have to wait a little longer.
The agency has settled on two potential strategies for the first effort to bring rock and soil from another planet back to Earth for study, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson said Tuesday: It can either leverage existing technology into a simpler, cheaper craft or turn to a commercial partner for a new design.
But the final decision on the mission’s structure — or whether it should proceed at all — “is going to be a function of the new administration,” Nelson said. President-elect Donald Trump will take office Jan. 20.
“I don’t think we want the only [Mars] sample return coming back on a Chinese spacecraft,” Nelson said, referencing a rival mission that Beijing has in the works. “I think that the [Trump] administration will certainly conclude that they want to proceed. So what we wanted to do was to give them the best possible options so that they can go from there.”
The call also contained words of encouragement for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, which leads the embattled mission’s engineering efforts.
“To put it really bluntly, JPL is our Mars center in NASA science,” said Nicky Fox, associate administrator of the Science Mission Directorate. “They are the people who landed us on Mars, together with our industry partners. So they will be moving forward, regardless of which path, with a key role in the Mars Sample Return.”
In April, after an independent review found “near zero probability” of Mars Sample Return making its proposed 2028 launch date, NASA put out a request for alternative proposals to all of its centers and the private sector. JPL was forced to compete for what had been its own project.
The independent review board determined that the original design would probably cost up to $11 billion and not return samples to Earth until at least 2040.
“That was just simply unacceptable,” said Nelson, who paused the mission in late 2023 to review its chances of success.
Ensuing cuts to the mission’s budget forced a series of layoffs at JPL, which let go of 855 employees and 100 on-site contractors in 2024.
The NASA-led option that Nelson suggested Tuesday includes several elements from the JPL proposal, according to a person who reviewed the documents. This leaner, simpler alternative will cost between $6.6 billion and $7.7 billion, and will return the samples by 2039, he said. A commercial alternative would probably cost $5.8 billion to $7.1 billion.
Nelson, a former Democratic U.S. senator from Florida, will step down as head of the space agency when Trump takes office. Trump has nominated as his successor Jared Isaacman, a tech billionaire who performed the first private space walk, who must be confirmed by the Senate.
NASA has not had any conversations with Trump’s transition team about Mars Sample Return, Nelson said. How the new administration will prioritize the project is not yet clear.
“It’s very uncertain how the new administration will go forward,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy for the Planetary Society, a Pasadena nonprofit that promotes space research. “Cancellation is obviously still on the table. … It’s hard to game this out.”
Planetary scientists have identified Mars Sample Return as their field’s highest priority in the last three decadal surveys, reports that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine prepare every 10 years in order to advise NASA.
Successfully completing the mission is “key for the nation’s leadership in space science,” said Bethany L. Ehlmann, a planetary scientist at Caltech in Pasadena. “I hope the incoming administrator moves forward decisively to select a plan and execute. There are extraordinary engineers at JPL and NASA industry partners eager and able to get to work to make it happen.”
Science
Panama Canal’s Expansion Opened Routes for Fish to Relocate
Night fell as the two scientists got to work, unfurling long nets off the end of their boat. The jungle struck up its evening symphony: the sweet chittering of insects, the distant bellowing of monkeys, the occasional screech of a kite. Crocodiles lounged in the shallows, their eyes glinting when headlamps were shined their way.
Across the water, cargo ships made dark shapes as they slid between the seas.
The Panama Canal has for more than a century connected far-flung peoples and economies, making it an essential artery for global trade — and, in recent weeks, a target of President-elect Donald J. Trump’s expansionist designs.
But of late the canal has been linking something else, too: the immense ecosystems of the Atlantic and the Pacific.
The two oceans have been separated for some three million years, ever since the isthmus of Panama rose out of the water and split them. The canal cut a path through the continent, yet for decades only a handful of marine fish species managed to migrate through the waterway and the freshwater reservoir, Lake Gatún, that feeds its locks.
Then, in 2016, Panama expanded the canal to allow supersize ships, and all that started to change.
In less than a decade, fish from both oceans — snooks, jacks, snappers and more — have almost entirely displaced the freshwater species that were in the canal system before, scientists with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama have found. Fishermen around Lake Gatún who rely on those species, chiefly peacock bass and tilapia, say their catches are growing scarce.
Researchers now worry that more fish could start making their way through from one ocean to the other. And no potential invader causes more concern than the venomous, candy-striped lionfish. They are known to inhabit Panama’s Caribbean coast, but not the eastern Pacific. If they made it there through the canal, they could ravage the defenseless local fish, just as they’ve done in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.
Already, marine species are more than occasional visitors in Lake Gatún, said Phillip Sanchez, a fisheries ecologist with the Smithsonian. They’re “becoming the dominant community,” he said. They’re “pushing everything else out.”
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics6 days ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics6 days ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics4 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health3 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades