Quantifying the Impact of Large Language Models on Collective Opinion Dynamics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03313v2
• Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 01:53:37 GMT
• Title: Quantifying the Impact of Large Language Models on Collective Opinion Dynamics
• Authors: Chao Li, Xing Su, Haoying Han, Cong Xue, Chunmo Zheng, Chao Fan
• Abstract summary: We create an opinion network dynamics model to encode the opinions of large language models (LLMs) The results suggest that the output opinion of LLMs has a unique and positive effect on the collective opinion difference. Our experiments also find that introducing extra agents with opposite/neutral/random opinions, we can effectively mitigate the impact of biased/toxic output.
• Score: 7.0012506428382375
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The process of opinion expression and exchange is a critical component of democratic societies. As people interact with large language models (LLMs) in the opinion shaping process different from traditional media, the impacts of LLMs are increasingly recognized and being concerned. However, the knowledge about how LLMs affect the process of opinion expression and exchange of social opinion networks is very limited. Here, we create an opinion network dynamics model to encode the opinions of LLMs, cognitive acceptability and usage strategies of individuals, and simulate the impact of LLMs on opinion dynamics in a variety of scenarios. The outcomes of the simulations inform about effective demand-oriented opinion network interventions. The results from this study suggested that the output opinion of LLMs has a unique and positive effect on the collective opinion difference. The marginal effect of cognitive acceptability on collective opinion formation is nonlinear and shows a decreasing trend. When people partially rely on LLMs, the exchange process of opinion becomes more intense and the diversity of opinion becomes more favorable. In fact, there is 38.6% more opinion diversity when people all partially rely on LLMs, compared to prohibiting the use of LLMs entirely. The optimal diversity of opinion was found when the fractions of people who do not use, partially rely on, and fully rely on LLMs reached roughly 4:12:1. Our experiments also find that introducing extra agents with opposite/neutral/random opinions, we can effectively mitigate the impact of biased/toxic output from LLMs. Our findings provide valuable insights into opinion dynamics in the age of LLMs, highlighting the need for customized interventions tailored to specific scenarios to address the drawbacks of improper output and use of LLMs.

Related papers

• Persuasion with Large Language Models: a Survey [49.86930318312291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:05:52Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [73.25935570218375]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language. We uncover notable diversity in the ideological stance exhibited across different LLMs and languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Bias in the Mirror: Are LLMs opinions robust to their own adversarial attacks ? [22.0383367888756]
  Large language models (LLMs) inherit biases from their training data and alignment processes, influencing their responses in subtle ways. We introduce a novel approach where two instances of an LLM engage in self-debate, arguing opposing viewpoints to persuade a neutral version of the model. We evaluate how firmly biases hold and whether models are susceptible to reinforcing misinformation or shifting to harmful viewpoints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T13:06:02Z)
• A Multi-LLM Debiasing Framework [85.17156744155915]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools with the potential to benefit society immensely, yet, they have demonstrated biases that perpetuate societal inequalities. Recent research has shown a growing interest in multi-LLM approaches, which have been demonstrated to be effective in improving the quality of reasoning. We propose a novel multi-LLM debiasing framework aimed at reducing bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T20:24:50Z)
• On the Principles behind Opinion Dynamics in Multi-Agent Systems of Large Language Models [2.8282906214258805]
  We study the evolution of opinions inside a population of interacting large language models (LLMs) We identify biases that drive the exchange of opinions based on the LLM's tendency to find consensus with the other LLM's opinion. We find these biases are affected by the perceived absence of compelling reasons for opinion change, the perceived willingness to engage in discussion, and the distribution of allocation values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T18:37:23Z)
• Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal [57.99044181599786]
  Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact. We show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• A Group Fairness Lens for Large Language Models [34.0579082699443]
  Large language models can perpetuate biases and unfairness when deployed in social media contexts. We propose evaluating LLM biases from a group fairness lens using a novel hierarchical schema characterizing diverse social groups. We pioneer a novel chain-of-thought method GF-Think to mitigate biases of LLMs from a group fairness perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-24T13:25:15Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.