Waking Up an AI: A Quantitative Framework for Prompt-Induced Phase Transition in Large Language Models

What underlies intuitive human thinking? One approach to this question is to compare the cognitive dynamics of humans and large language models (LLMs). However, such a comparison requires a method to quantitatively analyze AI cognitive behavior under controlled conditions. While anecdotal observations suggest that certain prompts can dramatically change LLM behavior, these observations have remained largely qualitative. Here, we propose a two-part framework to investigate this phenomenon: a Transition-Inducing Prompt (TIP) that triggers a rapid shift in LLM responsiveness, and a Transition Quantifying Prompt (TQP) that evaluates this change using a separate LLM. Through controlled experiments, we examined how LLMs react to prompts embedding two semantically distant concepts (e.g., mathematical aperiodicity and traditional crafts)-either fused together or presented separately-by changing their linguistic quality and affective tone. Whereas humans tend to experience heightened engagement when such concepts are meaningfully blended producing a novel concept-a form of conceptual fusion-current LLMs showed no significant difference in responsiveness between semantically fused and non-fused prompts. This suggests that LLMs may not yet replicate the conceptual integration processes seen in human intuition. Our method enables fine-grained, reproducible measurement of cognitive responsiveness, and may help illuminate key differences in how intuition and conceptual leaps emerge in artificial versus human minds.

Triggering Hallucinations in LLMs: A Quantitative Study of Prompt-Induced Hallucination in Large Language Models

Hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) present a growing challenge across real-world applications, from healthcare to law, where factual reliability is essential. Despite advances in alignment and instruction tuning, LLMs can still generate outputs that are fluent yet fundamentally untrue. Understanding the cognitive dynamics that underlie these hallucinations remains an open problem. In this study, we propose a prompt-based framework to systematically trigger and quantify hallucination: a Hallucination-Inducing Prompt (HIP), which synthetically fuses semantically distant concepts (e.g., periodic table of elements and tarot divination) in a misleading way, and a Hallucination Quantifying Prompt (HQP), which scores the plausibility, confidence, and coherence of the output. Controlled experiments across multiple LLMs revealed that HIPs consistently produced less coherent and more hallucinated responses than their null-fusion controls. These effects varied across models, with reasoning-oriented LLMs showing distinct profiles from general-purpose ones. Our framework provides a reproducible testbed for studying hallucination vulnerability, and opens the door to developing safer, more introspective LLMs that can detect and self-regulate the onset of conceptual instability.