Artificial Intelligence and Civil Discourse: How LLMs Moderate Climate Change Conversations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12077v1
• Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2025 03:32:47 GMT
• Title: Artificial Intelligence and Civil Discourse: How LLMs Moderate Climate Change Conversations
• Authors: Wenlu Fan, Wentao Xu,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into online platforms and digital communication spaces.<n>This study examines how LLMs naturally moderate climate change conversations through their distinct communicative behaviors.
• Score: 2.570568710751949
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into online platforms and digital communication spaces, their potential to influence public discourse - particularly in contentious areas like climate change - requires systematic investigation. This study examines how LLMs naturally moderate climate change conversations through their distinct communicative behaviors. We conduct a comparative analysis of conversations between LLMs and human users on social media platforms, using five advanced models: three open-source LLMs (Gemma, Llama 3, and Llama 3.3) and two commercial systems (GPT-4o by OpenAI and Claude 3.5 by Anthropic). Through sentiment analysis, we assess the emotional characteristics of responses from both LLMs and humans. The results reveal two key mechanisms through which LLMs moderate discourse: first, LLMs consistently display emotional neutrality, showing far less polarized sentiment than human users. Second, LLMs maintain lower emotional intensity across contexts, creating a stabilizing effect in conversations. These findings suggest that LLMs possess inherent moderating capacities that could improve the quality of public discourse on controversial topics. This research enhances our understanding of how AI might support more civil and constructive climate change discussions and informs the design of AI-assisted communication tools.

Related papers

• Passing the Turing Test in Political Discourse: Fine-Tuning LLMs to Mimic Polarized Social Media Comments [0.0]
  This study explores the extent to which fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) can replicate and amplify polarizing discourse.<n>Using a curated dataset of politically charged discussions extracted from Reddit, we fine-tune an open-source LLM to produce context-aware and ideologically aligned responses.<n>The results indicate that, when trained on partisan data, LLMs are capable of producing highly plausible and provocative comments, often indistinguishable from those written by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T15:41:26Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• CliME: Evaluating Multimodal Climate Discourse on Social Media and the Climate Alignment Quotient (CAQ) [14.065907685322097]
  CliME is a first-of-its-kind multimodal dataset, comprising 2579 Twitter and Reddit posts.<n>The benchmark features a diverse collection of humorous memes and skeptical posts, capturing how these formats distill complex issues into viral narratives that shape public opinion and policy discussions.<n>We present the Climate Alignment Quotient (CAQ), a novel metric comprising five distinct dimensions: Articulation, Evidence, Resonance, Transition, and Specificity.<n>Our findings, based on the CAQ metric, indicate that while most evaluated LLMs perform relatively well in Criticality and Justice, they consistently underperform on the Actionability axis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T20:01:00Z)
• Can (A)I Change Your Mind? [0.6990493129893112]
  Conducted entirely in Hebrew with 200 participants, the study assessed the persuasive effects of both LLM and human interlocutors on controversial civil policy topics.<n>Results indicated that participants adopted LLM and human perspectives similarly, with significant opinion changes evident across all conditions.<n>These findings demonstrate LLM-based agents' robust persuasive capabilities across diverse sources and settings, highlighting their potential impact on shaping public opinions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-03T18:59:54Z)
• From Personas to Talks: Revisiting the Impact of Personas on LLM-Synthesized Emotional Support Conversations [19.67703146838264]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized the generation of emotional support conversations.<n>This paper explores the role of personas in the creation of emotional support conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T05:24:30Z)
• NewsInterview: a Dataset and a Playground to Evaluate LLMs' Ground Gap via Informational Interviews [65.35458530702442]
  We focus on journalistic interviews, a domain rich in grounding communication and abundant in data. We curate a dataset of 40,000 two-person informational interviews from NPR and CNN. LLMs are significantly less likely than human interviewers to use acknowledgements and to pivot to higher-level questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-21T01:37:38Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Generative Echo Chamber? Effects of LLM-Powered Search Systems on Diverse Information Seeking [49.02867094432589]
  Large language models (LLMs) powered conversational search systems have already been used by hundreds of millions of people. We investigate whether and how LLMs with opinion biases that either reinforce or challenge the user's view change the effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-08T18:14:33Z)
• Sibyl: Empowering Empathetic Dialogue Generation in Large Language Models via Sensible and Visionary Commonsense Inference [40.96005200292604]
  We present an innovative framework named Sensible and Visionary Commonsense Knowledge (Sibyl)<n>It is designed to concentrate on the immediately succeeding dialogue, aiming to elicit more empathetic responses.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that incorporating our paradigm for acquiring commonsense knowledge into LLMs comprehensively enhances the quality of their responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-26T14:35:23Z)
• Think Before You Speak: Cultivating Communication Skills of Large Language Models via Inner Monologue [73.69510478736483]
  Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent, coherent, and diverse responses. However, they lack a crucial ability: communication skills. This article aims to empower LLMs with communication skills through inner monologues. Experimental results show that the proposed CSIM strategy improves the backbone models and outperforms the baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T16:19:42Z)
• BotChat: Evaluating LLMs' Capabilities of Having Multi-Turn Dialogues [72.65163468440434]
  This report provides a preliminary evaluation of existing large language models for human-style multi-turn chatting. We prompt large language models (LLMs) to generate a full multi-turn dialogue based on the ChatSEED, utterance by utterance. We find GPT-4 can generate human-style multi-turn dialogues with impressive quality, significantly outperforms its counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T16:53:51Z)
• Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench [83.41621219298489]
  We evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) anthropomorphic capabilities using the emotion appraisal theory from psychology. We collect a dataset containing over 400 situations that have proven effective in eliciting the eight emotions central to our study. We conduct a human evaluation involving more than 1,200 subjects worldwide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T15:18:30Z)

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.