The paper investigates whether AI evaluators differentiate between an argument’s content and the source attributed to it. Using 2,976 evaluations of six fixed texts across various source attributions, the study finds that the perceived quality of an argument varies with its source, indicating source-position coherence. The authors also note that this pattern holds across topics and model configurations, and that some evaluators explicitly noted mismatches between source and position.
arXiv:2605. 29928v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As AI-generated and AI-assisted content floods online spaces, source labels attached to such content can distort human reasoning judgments, with downstream consequences for moderation, evaluation, and decision-making.
The paper investigates whether large language model (LLM) chatbots can emulate human legal judgments of reasonableness. By comparing responses from 26 LLMs to those of human participants across 25 legal scenarios, the study finds that chatbots generally track human answers but tend to produce more homogeneous, government‑ and corporation‑friendly responses and align more closely with white, male, older, and more educated respondents. The authors note that these patterns warrant further systematic research.
arXiv:2606. 12073v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI has made fluent prose cheap to produce, breaking the old promise to readers that good writing meant real thinking.
arXiv:2609.37616v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models tend to agree with whatever a user asserts, and post-training increasingly targets this sycophancy so that models evaluate claims on th...
arXiv:2607. 29334v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Conversational AI developed by geopolitical rivals reaches citizens worldwide, raising concerns that it could sway public opinion or be rejected as foreign propaganda, with consequences for democratic discourse and information sovereignty.
arXiv:2604. 20711v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Artificial intelligence is increasingly deployed to synthesize large-scale public input in policy consultations and participatory processes.
arXiv:2606. 05256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This study analyzes a publicly released dataset from a discontinued field experiment on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView.
arXiv:2607. 27232v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how we consume information and form our worldview.
arXiv:2602. 05056v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Online scams increasingly leverage fluent and context-aware social engineering strategies, creating growing demand for AI systems that explain why a message may be risky.
As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions.
arXiv:2607. 20487v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer questions about political information, including in election-adjacent information settings where factual errors and ideological distortions are high-stakes.
arXiv:2608. 08975v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions.