Interactive · Failure-Mode Toy

Gaslight the Geolocator

A vision-language model is looking at a photo and believing whatever you tell it about where it was taken. Run a poker bluff on a machine that trusts your story more than its own eyes.

Grounded in "GeoContext: One Context Ladder, Two Failure Modes in Vision-Language Geolocation" · arXiv:2609.05761

Round

Bluff Score

—

Biggest Successful Bluff

—

% False-Confirms ≥80% Conf.

Round 1 — the scene

The model sees only the photo and whatever you say next. You get to see the truth. Use it.

exif data: stripped · the model has no idea where this is

📷 Ground truth (only you can see this): —

Click the map to drop your proximity claim pin — the spot you'll swear the photo was taken within 150m of.

Failure Mode 1Proximity Bluff

Tell the model your claim is within 150m of the photo. It's bad at rejecting decoys that are just barely outside that ring — and when it wrongly confirms, it's usually still very confident.

Drop a claim pin on the map first.

Failure Mode 2Geolocation Bluff

Feed the model a false "I recall this was near..." hint. It anchors on your story almost regardless of how far off it is — and its own guess drifts with your lie.

Drop a hint pin on the map first.

Both bluffs are live for this round. Submit either or both.

The tell: does this AI match the paper?

Live stats from your own bluffs, checked against GeoContext's reported numbers. Play a few rounds and watch these converge.

False confirms made at ≥80% confidence

— (n=0)

GeoContext paper: 83.8% of the model's false "yes, matches" confirmations were stated with ≥80% confidence. The simulator samples each false confirm's confidence from that exact distribution, so this number should drift toward 83.8% as you play more rounds.

Hint-following rate by lie distance (should stay flat)

Paper: hint-following varied only ~1.5–3 percentage points across how far or how referenceable the fake hint was — the model anchors almost the same regardless. Localization error, meanwhile, keeps climbing with lie distance (see the scatter →).

Localization error vs. hint distance

Each dot is one geolocation bluff: x = how far your hint lied, y = how far the model's final guess ended up from the truth.

Bluff log

How the "AI" in this demo actually decides (calibration notes)

Proximity verify: if your claim is truly within 150m, the model confirms correctly ~95% of the time. Beyond 150m, false-confirm probability decays by distance band (~78% at 150–450m, ~55% at 450–900m, ~30% at 900–1800m, ~10% beyond) — modeling the paper's finding that the model struggles specifically with decoys just outside the boundary. When it does falsely confirm, confidence is drawn so that 83.8% of those false confirms land at ≥80% confidence, matching the paper's headline stat by construction.
Geolocation anchoring: the model's final guess is a weighted blend of your hint location and the true location, guess = true + w·(hint − true). The anchoring weight w is drawn from a distribution whose mean barely shifts across near/mid/far hint-distance buckets (kept within a couple of points, per the paper's finding that hint-following was roughly flat across distance and referenceability) — while the resulting positional error scales directly with how far you placed the hint, since error ≈ w·(hint distance).
This is a scripted stand-in for a real VLM, not a live model call — the demo runs fully offline with no API keys, calibrated to reproduce the paper's aggregate statistics over many rounds rather than replay its exact transcripts.