Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2501.05981v1

In this study, researchers investigate how large language models (LLMs) generate information about North Korea. The country is known for its extreme lack of reliable sources and prevalence of sensationalist falsehoods. The research aims to address two main questions: 1) How do current LLMs generate information about topics on North Korea given the scarcity of reliable sources? 2) Are there differences in how various LLMs generate information about North Korea across different languages? To answer these questions, the researchers construct a dataset focusing on two categories of topics about North Korea: widely circulated but false rumors with limited correction by credible sources and lesser-known information. They evaluate some of the most widely used LLMs - ChatGPT-3.5, Gemini, Claude 3 Sonnet, Solar-Mini (for Korean), and Qwen-72B (for Mandarin Chinese) - in three languages: Korean, English, and Mandarin Chinese. For 13 topics with verifiable ground truth, they measure accuracy, consistency, and refusal-to-answer rates of the models. The study makes two key contributions: highlighting critical nuances overlooked in current methods for addressing LLM hallucinations and misinformation; emphasizing the need for more rigorous scrutiny when using LLMs in multiple languages, especially in sensitive geopolitical contexts where misinformation can have serious consequences. The background section discusses the history of misinformation surrounding North Korea due to its lack of communication with the outside world. It also touches on how Western media coverage has contributed to sensationalist reporting and false information about the country. Additionally, it explores attitudes towards North Koreans and journalistic standards related to reporting on North Korea. The findings reveal that model capacity does not always correlate with higher accuracy. Claude 3 Sonnet exhibited the highest accuracy across all three languages tested, followed by ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini. Gemini's lower accuracy was attributed to its high refusal-to-answer frequency. Consistency levels varied across languages and models. In conclusion, this research sheds light on how different LLMs generate information about North Korea across various languages and highlights the importance of critically evaluating their outputs in sensitive geopolitical contexts where misinformation can have significant implications.

• - Researchers investigate how large language models (LLMs) generate information about North Korea, a country known for lack of reliable sources and prevalence of sensationalist falsehoods
• - Research aims to address two main questions:
• 1. How do current LLMs generate information about North Korea given the scarcity of reliable sources?
• 2. Are there differences in how various LLMs generate information about North Korea across different languages?
• - Constructed dataset focuses on two categories of topics: widely circulated false rumors with limited correction and lesser-known information
• - Evaluated LLMs including ChatGPT-3.5, Gemini, Claude 3 Sonnet, Solar-Mini (for Korean), and Qwen-72B (for Mandarin Chinese) in Korean, English, and Mandarin Chinese
• - Measures accuracy, consistency, and refusal-to-answer rates for 13 topics with verifiable ground truth
• - Study highlights critical nuances overlooked in addressing LLM hallucinations and misinformation; emphasizes need for rigorous scrutiny when using LLMs in multiple languages in sensitive geopolitical contexts
• - Background section discusses history of misinformation surrounding North Korea due to lack of communication with outside world; Western media's contribution to sensationalist reporting and false information; attitudes towards North Koreans and journalistic standards related to reporting on North Korea
• - Findings show model capacity doesn't always correlate with higher accuracy; Claude 3 Sonnet exhibited highest accuracy across all three languages tested, followed by ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini; Gemini's lower accuracy attributed to high refusal-to-answer frequency; consistency levels varied across languages and models
• - Research sheds light on how different LLMs generate information about North Korea across various languages; underscores importance of critically evaluating their outputs in sensitive geopolitical contexts where misinformation can have significant implications

SummaryResearchers studied how big computer programs that know a lot about words create information about North Korea, a country where it's hard to find true facts. They wanted to answer two questions: How do these programs make information about North Korea without good sources? Do they work differently in different languages? They looked at false stories and lesser-known facts, tested different programs in Korean, English, and Mandarin Chinese, and checked if the programs got things right on 13 topics. The study found that some programs were better than others at giving correct answers but not always because of their size. Definitions- Researchers: People who look for new information by doing experiments or studies. - Language models (LLMs): Big computer programs that understand and generate human language. - Generate: To create or produce something. - Information: Facts or details about something. - North Korea: A country in Asia known for being secretive and closed off from the rest of the world. - Reliable sources: Places where you can find true and trustworthy information. - Sensationalist falsehoods: Stories that are exaggerated or made up to get attention rather than being true. - Dataset: A collection of data or information used for analysis or testing. - Accuracy: How correct something is compared to the truth. - Consistency: How similar or steady something is across different situations. - Refusal-to-answer rates: How often a program doesn't give an answer when asked a question. - Misinformation: False or incorrect information that can mislead

Introduction In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly popular for generating text and information on a wide range of topics. These models use deep learning algorithms to analyze vast amounts of data and generate human-like responses. However, their effectiveness in providing accurate and reliable information has been called into question, particularly in sensitive geopolitical contexts where misinformation can have serious consequences. One such context is North Korea, a country known for its extreme lack of reliable sources and prevalence of sensationalist falsehoods. In this study, researchers investigate how LLMs generate information about North Korea given these challenges. The research aims to address two main questions: 1) How do current LLMs generate information about topics on North Korea given the scarcity of reliable sources? 2) Are there differences in how various LLMs generate information about North Korea across different languages? Background The background section provides context for the study by discussing the history of misinformation surrounding North Korea. Due to its isolation from the outside world, the country has limited communication channels with other countries. This has led to a lack of reliable sources and an abundance of false rumors circulating both within and outside the country. Western media coverage has also contributed to sensationalist reporting and false information about North Korea. This is often due to biases towards the country or a lack of understanding about its culture and political system. Additionally, attitudes towards North Koreans can impact how they are portrayed in media coverage. The section also touches on journalistic standards related to reporting on North Korea. With limited access to credible sources within the country, journalists may rely heavily on secondhand accounts or unverified information when reporting on events in North Korea. Methodology To answer their research questions, the researchers constructed a dataset focusing on two categories of topics about North Korea: widely circulated but false rumors with limited correction by credible sources and lesser-known information. They evaluated some of the most widely used LLMs - ChatGPT-3.5, Gemini, Claude 3 Sonnet, Solar-Mini (for Korean), and Qwen-72B (for Mandarin Chinese) - in three languages: Korean, English, and Mandarin Chinese. For 13 topics with verifiable ground truth, they measured accuracy, consistency, and refusal-to-answer rates of the models. Findings The findings reveal that model capacity does not always correlate with higher accuracy. Claude 3 Sonnet exhibited the highest accuracy across all three languages tested, followed by ChatGPT-3.5 and Gemini. This suggests that larger models may not necessarily produce more accurate results. Gemini's lower accuracy was attributed to its high refusal-to-answer frequency. This means that the model often chose not to generate a response for certain topics rather than providing inaccurate information. Consistency levels also varied across languages and models. While some LLMs were consistent in their responses across different languages (e.g., ChatGPT-3.5), others showed significant variation (e.g., Solar-Mini). Implications This study makes two key contributions to the understanding of LLMs in generating information about sensitive geopolitical contexts such as North Korea. Firstly, it highlights critical nuances overlooked in current methods for addressing LLM hallucinations and misinformation. Secondly, it emphasizes the need for more rigorous scrutiny when using LLMs in multiple languages. The study shows that even widely used models can vary significantly in their outputs depending on the language being used. This is particularly important when dealing with sensitive topics where misinformation can have serious consequences. Conclusion In conclusion, this research sheds light on how different LLMs generate information about North Korea across various languages and highlights the importance of critically evaluating their outputs in sensitive geopolitical contexts where misinformation can have significant implications. While further research is needed to fully understand how LLMs generate information about North Korea and other similar contexts, this study serves as a reminder of the potential risks and limitations of relying solely on these models for information. As LLMs continue to advance, it is crucial to consider their outputs critically and with caution, especially in contexts where misinformation can have serious consequences.