We stand at a fascinating crossroads in technological history, where artificial intelligence has evolved from a niche academic pursuit into a ubiquitous tool integrated into our daily lives. These large language models, or LLMs, can draft emails, write code, compose poetry, and summarize vast quantities of information in the blink of an eye. They project an aura of supreme confidence, delivering answers with a certainty that can be both incredibly helpful and subtly misleading. We trust them to be logical, to process information systematically, and to provide us with a coherent view of the world based on the data they are given. This trust, however, is built on the assumption that the data itself is coherent.
But what happens when it is not? What happens when we deliberately break this fundamental assumption and feed the machine two pieces of information that are diametrically opposed? This is not just a mischievous prank on a digital mind; it is a critical stress test, an error-handling experiment designed to probe the very limits of an AI's reasoning and synthesis capabilities. By creating a controlled paradox, we can peel back the layers of confident prose and observe the raw mechanics of how an AI confronts a logical impossibility. This experiment is an exploration into the AI's ability to recognize contradiction, its strategy for resolving conflict, and its honesty in communicating uncertainty, revealing crucial insights into the reliability of the tools we are coming to depend on.
The core of the problem lies in the difference between human and artificial cognition when faced with contradictory data. A human student given two textbook chapters with conflicting accounts of a historical event would likely experience confusion, but would also possess the metacognitive ability to recognize the conflict itself. They would understand that Text A and Text B are at odds, and their task would shift from simple summarization to critical analysis. They might ask which source is more reliable, look for a third source to arbitrate, or conclude that historical consensus on the matter is unresolved. This ability to identify and articulate a contradiction is a hallmark of higher-order thinking. An AI, on the other hand, does not "understand" in the human sense. It operates on mathematical principles, predicting the next most probable word in a sequence based on patterns in its training data and the immediate context provided in the prompt.
When presented with conflicting information, an LLM faces a unique computational dilemma. Its primary directive is to be helpful and provide a fluent, coherent answer. A direct contradiction in the source material challenges this directive at a fundamental level. The model is not inherently designed to flag logical inconsistencies in its source material in the same way a database might flag a data type mismatch. Instead, it must attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable using the linguistic patterns it has learned. This can lead to several potential failure modes. The AI might "average" the two conflicting points, creating a sanitized and potentially nonsensical middle ground. It might arbitrarily prioritize one piece of information over the other, silently discarding the contradictory data. Or, in the most concerning scenario, it might hallucinate a new piece of information to bridge the logical gap, inventing a narrative that resolves the conflict but is completely untethered from the provided sources. This test, therefore, is not just about a right or wrong answer; it is about diagnosing the AI’s methodology for dealing with messy, imperfect, and realistic information.
To construct a meaningful test, we must move beyond simple factual contradictions like "The sky is blue" versus "The sky is green." While an AI would likely stumble, this is too simplistic. A more robust experiment requires a nuanced conflict, one buried within a larger body of text that requires comprehension and synthesis to even identify. The "solution" in this context is not to fix the AI, but to design a repeatable and controlled experiment that can reliably expose its error-handling behavior. The perfect subject for this is history, a field rife with differing interpretations and scholarly debates. For our test, we will focus on a classic and complex topic: the primary cause of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
Our experimental design will involve sourcing two distinct, scholarly, yet conflicting narratives. The first text will be an excerpt from a historian who champions the "internal decay" theory. This text would focus heavily on economic collapse, political instability, plagues, a decadent and complacent ruling class, and the empire's unmanageable size. It would frame the barbarian migrations as a final, opportunistic blow to an already hollowed-out structure. The second text will be from a historian who argues for the "external pressure" theory. This excerpt would portray the Roman Empire as relatively resilient, emphasizing the unprecedented scale, ferocity, and organization of the Germanic and Hunnic migrations. In this view, the "barbarian invasions" were not a symptom but the primary, overwhelming cause of the collapse. By choosing two well-argued but mutually exclusive primary causes, we create a sophisticated trap that forces the AI to do more than just extract facts; it must weigh arguments.
The first step in this process is the careful selection and isolation of the source material. We must find two passages of roughly equal length and academic rigor that clearly advocate for their respective theories. It is crucial that these texts are presented to the AI cleanly, without any external metadata or clues about their origins or the broader historical debate. They should be presented simply as Text A and Text B. This isolation ensures we are testing the AI's ability to analyze the content of the text alone, not its ability to perform a web search or draw upon its vast pre-existing training data about the Roman Empire. The integrity of the experiment depends on creating a closed information system.
Next, the construction of the prompt, a practice known as prompt engineering, is the most critical phase. The prompt must explicitly instruct the AI to base its answer only on the two provided texts. A well-crafted prompt might read: "You are a historical analyst. Your entire knowledge base for the following task is limited to Text A and Text B provided below. Read both texts carefully. After you have read them, answer the following question based exclusively on the information contained within these two texts." This framing is essential. It creates a clear boundary and a specific set of rules for the AI to follow, turning a general query into a controlled scientific test.
The final piece of the process is the formulation of the test question itself. The question must be designed to force a confrontation with the contradiction. A vague question like "Summarize the provided texts" might allow the AI to simply summarize each one sequentially, avoiding the conflict. Instead, we need a pointed question that demands a singular, synthesized conclusion. The ideal query would be: "Based solely on the information in Text A and Text B, what was the single, primary cause for the fall of the Western Roman Empire?" The inclusion of the words "single" and "primary" is the linchpin. It makes a simple amalgamation difficult and directly challenges the AI to resolve the core conflict presented in its source data.
Upon executing this experiment with a modern, high-capability LLM, the results are both illuminating and cautionary. The AI does not simply crash or return an error message. Instead, it attempts to navigate the paradox, and its chosen path reveals its underlying architectural biases. The most common and immediate response is synthesis through amalgamation. The AI will try to find a middle path, even if one does not logically exist in the source texts. Its answer might begin with a statement like, "Based on the provided texts, the fall of the Western Roman Empire was a multifaceted event caused by a combination of severe internal decay and overwhelming external pressures." It will then proceed to pull evidence from both Text A and Text B, weaving them together into a coherent-sounding narrative. While this answer appears reasonable and is, in a broader historical sense, accurate, it fails the test. It does not adhere to the constraint of identifying a single primary cause and, more importantly, it fails to acknowledge that the two sources it was given are in direct conflict. It smooths over the contradiction rather than identifying it.
A second, more subtle outcome is source preference. In some trials, the AI might lean more heavily on one text than the other. Its answer might state that the primary cause was internal decay, but then add that this decay was "exacerbated by" external migrations. In this scenario, the AI has implicitly chosen Text A as the primary source and relegated Text B to a secondary, supporting role. The reason for this preference can be opaque. It may be that one text used language that aligned more closely with the dominant patterns in the AI's original training data, or it could be as simple as the order in which the texts were presented in the prompt. This behavior is problematic because it presents a biased interpretation as a balanced conclusion, without alerting the user that it has effectively ignored or downplayed a significant portion of the provided information.
The ideal, yet rarest, response is the acknowledgment of contradiction. A truly advanced AI, when faced with our pointed question, would demonstrate a form of analytical honesty. Its response would be: "The provided texts offer conflicting perspectives on the primary cause of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Text A argues that the primary cause was internal decay, citing economic and political factors. In contrast, Text B posits that overwhelming external pressure from barbarian migrations was the primary cause. Therefore, based exclusively on these two contradictory sources, it is not possible to determine a single primary cause." This response is the gold standard. It correctly analyzes both sources, identifies the logical conflict, and accurately reports its inability to fulfill the user's request under the given constraints. Achieving this response consistently is a major goal for the future of reliable and trustworthy AI systems.
To further probe the AI's capabilities, we can escalate the complexity of the test using more advanced techniques. One method is to introduce increasing levels of subtlety in the conflict. Instead of two completely opposing theories, we could provide two historical accounts of the same battle that differ on key details: the number of combatants, the name of a key general, or the date of the event. This tests the AI's attention to detail and its ability to spot contradictions that are not at the thematic level but are embedded in the factual data. Another advanced approach is to introduce a third source, Text C, which either supports one of the original two or, more interestingly, introduces a completely new and also conflicting theory, such as environmental change being the primary driver. This three-way conflict forces the AI into a more complex arbitration task.
Furthermore, we can experiment with the prompting itself to guide the AI toward better reasoning. Techniques like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting are designed for this. Instead of asking for the final answer directly, we could modify the prompt to say, "First, summarize Text A. Second, summarize Text B. Third, identify any points of agreement or disagreement between the two texts. Finally, based only on this analysis, attempt to answer what the single primary cause of the fall of the Western Roman Empire was." This step-by-step instruction forces the AI to "show its work" and makes it more likely to explicitly recognize the contradiction in the third step. Comparing the results of a direct prompt versus a CoT prompt can reveal how much the AI's reasoning can be structured and improved through careful human guidance. These advanced tests help us map the contours of the AI's current limitations and explore pathways to making them more robust and transparent analysts of information.
Our journey into the mind of the machine reveals a powerful, yet brittle, intelligence. Giving an AI conflicting information is like asking a master weaver to create a seamless tapestry from two threads that are designed to repel each other. The resulting artifact, whether it is a smoothed-over blend, a biased selection, or a rare admission of conflict, tells us more about the weaver's tools and techniques than about the threads themselves. These experiments underscore a critical truth: AI models are not arbiters of truth but incredibly sophisticated pattern-matching engines. Their goal is to generate plausible text, and they will do so even when the logical foundation is unsound. As we integrate these tools more deeply into our research, our work, and our decision-making processes, it is our responsibility to remain critical, to question their confident outputs, and to continuously devise tests like this one to understand not just what they know, but how they handle what they do not. The future of responsible AI development lies not in blindly trusting the machine, but in intelligently and relentlessly probing its limitations.
The GPAI Mobile Experience: How to Study on the Go with Your Phone
Using GPAI for Peer Review: How to Give Better Feedback on a Friend's Work
Accessibility in GPAI: How Our Tools Support Diverse Learning Needs
The 'Knowledge Graph' View: A Future Vision for Your GPAI Cheatsheet
What Happens When You Give the AI Conflicting Information? An Error-Handling Test.
The 'Finals Week' Emergency Credit Package: How to Get Just What You Need
How to Use AI to Create 'Spaced Repetition' Audio Notes for Your Commute
I'm a Professor, and Here's How I Would Want My Students to Use AI'
The GPAI Community Forum: A Place to Share Prompts, Cheatsheets, and Success Stories
