AI-Mediated Communication Can Steer Collective Opinion

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.16245v1
• Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 17:49:24 GMT
• Title: AI-Mediated Communication Can Steer Collective Opinion
• Abstract summary: We show that large language models (LLMs) introduce directional biases when instructed to edit human-written texts on contested topics.<n>We show that biases introduced by AI in human-to-human communication can be amplified through the network and shift collective opinion in their direction.<n>We audit the "Explain this post" feature on X and find evidence of pro-life bias in Grok's outputs on abortion-related content.
• Score: 7.2426367117188635
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into the online platforms where humans exchange opinions; large language models (LLMs) now polish users' posts on LinkedIn and provide context for content shared on X. While prior work has shown that AI can express biased opinions and shape individuals' opinions during human-AI interactions, less attention has been paid to its influence on collective opinion formation when mediating human-to-human communication. We address this gap via a combination of empirical and theoretical analyses. We show empirically that LLMs from multiple popular families introduce directional biases when instructed to edit human-written texts on contested topics, for example, nudging texts in favor of gun control and against atheism. Building on this observation, we introduce a mathematical model of opinion dynamics in which an AI system sits between users on a social network, transforming the opinions they express and perceive. By analytically characterizing the equilibrium of this model and performing simulations on real social network data, we show that biases introduced by AI in human-to-human communication can be amplified through the network and shift collective opinion in their direction. In light of these findings, we investigate whether such biases are controllable by online platforms. We audit the "Explain this post" feature on X and find evidence of pro-life bias in Grok's outputs on abortion-related content, which we trace back to specific design choices. We conclude with a discussion of the broader implications of our findings in relation to ongoing legislative efforts in the European Union.

Related papers

• How Far Did They Go? The Persuasive Tactics of Covert LLM Agents in a Discontinued Field Experiment [12.686044001239708]
  This study analyzes a publicly released dataset from a discontinued field experiment on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView.<n>The intervention, conducted by unknown, external researchers and halted following ethical backlash, involved undisclosed AI-generated accounts engaging users in live debate.<n>After public disclosure, Reddit authorized moderators to release an archive of the AI-generated comments, creating a rare opportunity to examine how large language models operated in an identity-rich deliberative forum without disclosure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T15:58:32Z)
• Interpretable Debiasing of Vision-Language Models for Social Fairness [55.85977929985967]
  We introduce an interpretable, model-agnostic bias mitigation framework, DeBiasLens, that localizes social attribute neurons in Vision-Language models.<n>We train SAEs on facial image or caption datasets without corresponding social attribute labels to uncover neurons highly responsive to specific demographics.<n>Our research lays the groundwork for future auditing tools, prioritizing social fairness in emerging real-world AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T13:37:11Z)
• Operational Validation of Large-Language-Model Agent Social Simulation: Evidence from Voat v/technology [59.63189507373199]
  We build a technology community simulation modeled on Voat, a Reddit-like alt-right news aggregator and discussion platform active from 2014 to 2020.<n>Using the YSocial framework, we seed the simulation with a fixed catalog of technology links sampled from Voat's shared URLs.<n>Agents generate posts, replies, and reactions under platform rules for link and text submissions, threaded replies and daily activity cycles.<n>Results indicate familiar online regularities: similar activity rhythms, heavy-tailed participation, sparse low-clustering interaction networks, core-periphery structure, topical alignment with Voat, and elevated toxicity
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T16:06:27Z)
• CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
  We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
• Modeling Human Responses to Multimodal AI Content [10.65875439980452]
  MhAIM dataset contains 154,552 online posts (111,153 of them AI-generated)<n>Our human study reveals that people are better at identifying AI content when posts include both text and visuals.<n>We present T-Lens, an agent system designed to answer user queries by incorporating predicted human responses to multimodal information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T15:55:19Z)
• 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)
• Analyzing User Perceptions of Large Language Models (LLMs) on Reddit: Sentiment and Topic Modeling of ChatGPT and DeepSeek Discussions [0.0]
  This study aims at analyzing Reddit discussions about ChatGPT and DeepSeek using sentiment and topic modeling.<n>Report mentions whether users have faith in the technology and what they see as its future.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T17:00:42Z)
• Human Bias in the Face of AI: Examining Human Judgment Against Text Labeled as AI Generated [48.70176791365903]
  This study explores how bias shapes the perception of AI versus human generated content.<n>We investigated how human raters respond to labeled and unlabeled content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T04:31:45Z)
• From Perils to Possibilities: Understanding how Human (and AI) Biases affect Online Fora [0.12564343689544843]
  Review explores the dynamics of social interactions, user-generated contents, and biases within the context of social media analysis. Three key points of view are: online debates, online support, and human-AI interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T11:04:41Z)
• Rational Silence and False Polarization: How Viewpoint Organizations and Recommender Systems Distort the Expression of Public Opinion [4.419843514606336]
  We show how platforms impact what observers of online discourse come to believe about community views.<n>We show that signals from ideological organizations encourage an increase in rhetorical intensity, leading to the 'rational silence' of moderate users.<n>We identify practical strategies platforms can implement, such as reducing exposure to signals from ideological organizations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-10T17:02:19Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Echo Chambers on Social Media: A comparative analysis [64.2256216637683]
  We introduce an operational definition of echo chambers and perform a massive comparative analysis on 1B pieces of contents produced by 1M users on four social media platforms. We infer the leaning of users about controversial topics and reconstruct their interaction networks by analyzing different features. We find support for the hypothesis that platforms implementing news feed algorithms like Facebook may elicit the emergence of echo-chambers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-20T20:00:27Z)

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.