LLM-Based Bot Broadens the Range of Arguments in Online Discussions, Even When Transparently Disclosed as AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17073v1
• Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 15:24:31 GMT
• Title: LLM-Based Bot Broadens the Range of Arguments in Online Discussions, Even When Transparently Disclosed as AI
• Authors: Valeria Vuk, Cristina Sarasua, Fabrizio Gilardi,
• Abstract summary: This study examines whether an LLM-based bot can widen the scope of perspectives expressed by participants in online discussions.<n>We evaluate the impact of a bot that actively monitors discussions, identifies missing arguments, and introduces them into the conversation.<n>The results indicate that our bot significantly expands the range of arguments, as measured by both objective and subjective metrics.
• Score: 5.393664305233901
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: A wide range of participation is essential for democracy, as it helps prevent the dominance of extreme views, erosion of legitimacy, and political polarization. However, engagement in online political discussions often features a limited spectrum of views due to high levels of self-selection and the tendency of online platforms to facilitate exchanges primarily among like-minded individuals. This study examines whether an LLM-based bot can widen the scope of perspectives expressed by participants in online discussions through two pre-registered randomized experiments conducted in a chatroom. We evaluate the impact of a bot that actively monitors discussions, identifies missing arguments, and introduces them into the conversation. The results indicate that our bot significantly expands the range of arguments, as measured by both objective and subjective metrics. Furthermore, disclosure of the bot as AI does not significantly alter these effects. These findings suggest that LLM-based moderation tools can positively influence online political discourse.

Related papers

• How Large Language Models play humans in online conversations: a simulated study of the 2016 US politics on Reddit [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as powerful tools for natural language generation.<n>We evaluate the performance of LLMs in replicating user-generated content within a real-world, divisive scenario: Reddit conversations during the 2016 US Presidential election.<n>We find GPT-4 is able to produce realistic comments, both in favor of or against the candidate supported by the community, yet tending to create consensus more easily than dissent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T08:54:32Z)
• 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)
• An Empirical Study of Group Conformity in Multi-Agent Systems [0.26999000177990923]
  This study explores how Large Language Models (LLMs) agents shape public opinion through debates on five contentious topics.<n>By simulating over 2,500 debates, we analyze how initially neutral agents, assigned a centrist disposition, adopt specific stances over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T05:22:29Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Biased AI can Influence Political Decision-Making [64.9461133083473]
  This paper presents two experiments investigating the effects of partisan bias in large language models (LLMs) on political opinions and decision-making.<n>We found that participants exposed to partisan biased models were significantly more likely to adopt opinions and make decisions which matched the LLM's bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T22:56:00Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Demonstrations of the Potential of AI-based Political Issue Polling [0.0]
  We develop a prompt engineering methodology for eliciting human-like survey responses from ChatGPT. We execute large scale experiments, querying for thousands of simulated responses at a cost far lower than human surveys. We find ChatGPT is effective at anticipating both the mean level and distribution of public opinion on a variety of policy issues. But it is less successful at anticipating demographic-level differences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-10T12:17:15Z)
• DEBACER: a method for slicing moderated debates [55.705662163385966]
  Partitioning debates into blocks with the same subject is essential for understanding. We propose a new algorithm, DEBACER, which partitions moderated debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-10T10:39:07Z)
• Identification of Twitter Bots based on an Explainable ML Framework: the US 2020 Elections Case Study [72.61531092316092]
  This paper focuses on the design of a novel system for identifying Twitter bots based on labeled Twitter data. Supervised machine learning (ML) framework is adopted using an Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm. Our study also deploys Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) for explaining the ML model predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-08T14:12:24Z)

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.