Tailored Truths: Optimizing LLM Persuasion with Personalization and Fabricated Statistics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17273v1
• Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 20:06:09 GMT
• Title: Tailored Truths: Optimizing LLM Persuasion with Personalization and Fabricated Statistics
• Authors: Jasper Timm, Chetan Talele, Jacob Haimes,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly persuasive.<n>LLMs can personalize arguments in conversation with humans by leveraging their personal data.<n>This may have serious impacts on the scale and effectiveness of disinformation campaigns.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly persuasive, demonstrating the ability to personalize arguments in conversation with humans by leveraging their personal data. This may have serious impacts on the scale and effectiveness of disinformation campaigns. We studied the persuasiveness of LLMs in a debate setting by having humans $(n=33)$ engage with LLM-generated arguments intended to change the human's opinion. We quantified the LLM's effect by measuring human agreement with the debate's hypothesis pre- and post-debate and analyzing both the magnitude of opinion change, as well as the likelihood of an update in the LLM's direction. We compare persuasiveness across established persuasion strategies, including personalized arguments informed by user demographics and personality, appeal to fabricated statistics, and a mixed strategy utilizing both personalized arguments and fabricated statistics. We found that static arguments generated by humans and GPT-4o-mini have comparable persuasive power. However, the LLM outperformed static human-written arguments when leveraging the mixed strategy in an interactive debate setting. This approach had a $\mathbf{51\%}$ chance of persuading participants to modify their initial position, compared to $\mathbf{32\%}$ for the static human-written arguments. Our results highlight the concerning potential for LLMs to enable inexpensive and persuasive large-scale disinformation campaigns.

Related papers

• A Framework to Assess the Persuasion Risks Large Language Model Chatbots Pose to Democratic Societies [1.1819975950139372]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) pose to democratic societies through their persuasive capabilities. We conduct two survey experiments and a real-world simulation exercise to determine whether it is more cost effective to persuade a large number of voters using LLMs. We estimate that LLM-based persuasion costs between $48-$74 per persuaded voter compared to $100 for traditional campaign methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T16:02:51Z)
• AI persuading AI vs AI persuading Humans: LLMs' Differential Effectiveness in Promoting Pro-Environmental Behavior [70.24245082578167]
  Pro-environmental behavior (PEB) is vital to combat climate change, yet turning awareness into intention and action remains elusive. We explore large language models (LLMs) as tools to promote PEB, comparing their impact across 3,200 participants. Results reveal a "synthetic persuasion paradox": synthetic and simulated agents significantly affect their post-intervention PEB stance, while human responses barely shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T21:40:55Z)
• Can (A)I Change Your Mind? [0.6990493129893112]
  The study was conducted entirely in Hebrew with 200 participants. It assessed the persuasive effects of both LLM and human interlocutors on controversial civil policy topics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T18:59:54Z)
• 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)
• Measuring and Benchmarking Large Language Models' Capabilities to Generate Persuasive Language [41.052284715017606]
  We study the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to produce persuasive text. As opposed to prior work which focuses on particular domains or types of persuasion, we conduct a general study across various domains. We construct the new dataset Persuasive-Pairs of pairs of pairs of a short text and its rewrite by an LLM to amplify or diminish persuasive language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T17:40:47Z)
• Large Language Models are as persuasive as humans, but how? About the cognitive effort and moral-emotional language of LLM arguments [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are already as persuasive as humans. This paper investigates the persuasion strategies of LLMs, comparing them with human-generated arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T19:01:20Z)
• Can Language Models Recognize Convincing Arguments? [12.458437450959416]
  Large language models (LLMs) have raised concerns about their potential to create and propagate convincing narratives. We study their performance in detecting convincing arguments to gain insights into their persuasive capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-31T17:38:33Z)
• 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)
• Bias Runs Deep: Implicit Reasoning Biases in Persona-Assigned LLMs [67.51906565969227]
  We study the unintended side-effects of persona assignment on the ability of LLMs to perform basic reasoning tasks. Our study covers 24 reasoning datasets, 4 LLMs, and 19 diverse personas (e.g. an Asian person) spanning 5 socio-demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T18:52:17Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Can ChatGPT Assess Human Personalities? A General Evaluation Framework [70.90142717649785]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have produced impressive results in various areas, but their potential human-like psychology is still largely unexplored. This paper presents a generic evaluation framework for LLMs to assess human personalities based on Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-01T06:16:14Z)
• Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
  Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication. We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions. Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z)
• What Changed Your Mind: The Roles of Dynamic Topics and Discourse in Argumentation Process [78.4766663287415]
  This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness. We propose a novel neural model that is able to track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T04:27:48Z)

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.