The Almost Intelligent Revolution: Options for Scaling Up Deliberation and Empowering People with AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.19864v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 07:25:19 GMT
• Title: The Almost Intelligent Revolution: Options for Scaling Up Deliberation and Empowering People with AI
• Abstract summary: The increasing prominence of Large Language Models (LLMs) in public discourse presents both opportunities and challenges for democratic deliberation.<n>This chapter explores how LLMs can be used to significantly scale up and democratise deliberation, particularly in fostering inclusivity and empowering traditionally marginalised groups.<n>The chapter presents AI-driven deliberation studies and assesses their potential to scaffold argumentation, enhance access, and reduce the influence of exclusionary linguistic norms and biases which are embedded in prestigious registers.
• Score: 1.9943074894669666
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The increasing prominence of Large Language Models (LLMs) in public discourse presents both opportunities and challenges for democratic deliberation. While red teaming strategies help mitigate specific risks, broader concerns persist regarding linguistic constraints, biases, and the sycophantic tendencies of LLMs. This chapter explores how LLMs can be used to significantly scale up and democratise deliberation, particularly in fostering inclusivity and empowering traditionally marginalised groups. Drawing on concepts from Systemic-Functional Linguistics, the chapter examines how variations across language users (for example, with respect to socio-demographic groups) and across language use (for example, with respect to communicative functions) shape participation in AI-supported deliberation. The chapter presents AI-driven deliberation studies and assesses their potential to scaffold argumentation, enhance access, and reduce the influence of exclusionary linguistic norms and biases which are embedded in prestigious registers. At the same time, the chapter cautions against both overclaiming, which leads to unrealistic expectations, and underclaiming, which risks missed opportunities for AI-assisted engagement. The chapter concludes by identifying future research directions to maximise the democratic potential of AI-assisted participation while embedding ethical safeguards to counteract the reproduction of linguistic inequalities.

Related papers

• Strategic Polysemy in AI Discourse: A Philosophical Analysis of Language, Hype, and Power [5.083817379349744]
  We argue that many terms exhibit strategic polysemy, combining narrow technical definitions with broader anthropomorphic or common-sense associations.<n>This semantic flexibility produces significant institutional and discursive effects, shaping how AI systems are understood by researchers, policymakers, funders, and the public.<n>We argue that this practice contributes to AI hype cycles, facilitates the mobilisation of investment and institutional support, and influences public and policy perceptions of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-22T19:40:55Z)
• 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)
• On the Same Wavelength? Evaluating Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Models across Broad Concepts [69.69818198773244]
  We study a range of LMs on both language comprehension and language production.<n>We find that state-of-the-art LMs, but not smaller ones, achieve strong performance on language comprehension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T17:59:32Z)
• 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)
• Disambiguation in Conversational Question Answering in the Era of LLMs and Agents: A Survey [54.90240495777929]
  Ambiguity remains a fundamental challenge in Natural Language Processing (NLP)<n>With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), addressing ambiguity has become even more critical due to their expanded capabilities and applications.<n>This paper explores the definition, forms, and implications of ambiguity for language driven systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T20:53:41Z)
• An Overview of Large Language Models for Statisticians [109.38601458831545]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as transformative tools in artificial intelligence (AI)<n>This paper explores potential areas where statisticians can make important contributions to the development of LLMs.<n>We focus on issues such as uncertainty quantification, interpretability, fairness, privacy, watermarking and model adaptation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T03:40:36Z)
• IOLBENCH: Benchmarking LLMs on Linguistic Reasoning [11.769142654717799]
  We introduce IOLBENCH, a novel benchmark derived from International Linguistics Olympiad (IOL) problems.<n>This dataset encompasses diverse problems testing syntax, morphology, phonology, and semantics.<n>We find that even the most advanced models struggle to handle the intricacies of linguistic complexity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-08T03:15:10Z)
• Converging Paradigms: The Synergy of Symbolic and Connectionist AI in LLM-Empowered Autonomous Agents [55.63497537202751]
  Article explores the convergence of connectionist and symbolic artificial intelligence (AI) Traditionally, connectionist AI focuses on neural networks, while symbolic AI emphasizes symbolic representation and logic. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) highlight the potential of connectionist architectures in handling human language as a form of symbols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T14:00:53Z)
• Igniting Language Intelligence: The Hitchhiker's Guide From Chain-of-Thought Reasoning to Language Agents [80.5213198675411]
  Large language models (LLMs) have dramatically enhanced the field of language intelligence. LLMs leverage the intriguing chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning techniques, obliging them to formulate intermediate steps en route to deriving an answer. Recent research endeavors have extended CoT reasoning methodologies to nurture the development of autonomous language agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T14:30:55Z)
• Vox Populi, Vox ChatGPT: Large Language Models, Education and Democracy [0.0]
  This paper explores the potential transformative impact of large language models (LLMs) on democratic societies. The discussion emphasizes the essence of authorship, rooted in the unique human capacity for reason. We advocate for an emphasis on education as a means to mitigate risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T17:47:46Z)
• Re-Reading Improves Reasoning in Large Language Models [87.46256176508376]
  We introduce a simple, yet general and effective prompting method, Re2, to enhance the reasoning capabilities of off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs) Unlike most thought-eliciting prompting methods, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Re2 shifts the focus to the input by processing questions twice, thereby enhancing the understanding process. We evaluate Re2 on extensive reasoning benchmarks across 14 datasets, spanning 112 experiments, to validate its effectiveness and generality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-12T14:36:23Z)

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.