Interrupting the Chain: Human Perception of AI-Generated Disinformation Through a Kill Chain Lens

Generative AI enables customized misinformation at scale, yet defenses remain largely reactive. We present empirical findings from a human-subject study (n=504 participants, n=2,438 judgments) in which users classified news fragments by origin (human vs. machine) and veracity (real vs. fake). We organize results using an adapted cybersecurity kill chain as a taxonomy for intervention, mapping perception data onto stages of a cognitive attack lifecycle. Three key findings emerge: (1) a perception-accuracy gap where heightened suspicion does not improve detection; (2) modern LLMs frequently produce human-indistinguishable text; and (3) an asymmetric cognitive fatigue effect where fake-news detection degrades by 10.2 percentage points under sustained exposure while AI-origin detection remains stable. These findings identify candidate intervention points for proactive defense against AI-driven disinformation.

How Artificial Intelligence LLM Engines Shape the Global Conflict Information Environment

Artificial Intelligence (AI) answer engines now field a growing share of the questions that analysts, scholars, and the public ask about issues of peace and conflict. Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to hallucinate under certain conditions, but do these errors have discernible patterns when they are asked about conflicts, and if so what can that teach us about the changing global conflict information environment? To answer, we first asked a battery of questions about 28 conflicts to five leading answer engines and scored their 5,460 answers against documented evidence. We found that the thinner the retrievable record around a given conflict, the more the engines invent, misattribute, and miscount. Thin records don't just encourage hallucination, but create structural exposure to mis- and disinformation, because they are the easiest records to warp through Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) to bias engine responses. Through an analysis of 1,048 websites that the AI LLMs pulled conflict facts from, we found that GEO source optimization is already happening, and while state-partisan digital capture remains incipient it is rapidly growing. We explain what these findings mean for scholarship with the rise of GEO information warfare, and for policy argue for a return to the deep local monitoring and translation-based research that AI tools cannot replicate, closing with a discussion of future research opportunities and challenges in this fast-moving space.