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.
In this study, a generalized operator-based mathematical conflict framework is presented to explicitly represent structural discrepancies between raw data and contextual data. The proposed structure treats conflict as a local, directional, and context-sensitive quantity, integrating components such as weighting, scale behavior, and output mapping under a unified abstract operator. Without being reduced to a specific learning algorithm or optimization method, the framework is defined as a general structure adaptable to different classes of problems. While existing approaches typically treat conflict merely as an implicit side effect embedded within the optimization process, the proposed framework considers conflict as an independent, operator-based, and component-level mathematical object.