The study investigates whether the door‑in‑the‑face technique—making a large request that is refused to increase the likelihood of a smaller follow‑up request being granted—works on large language models. Nine production models from Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and Haiku were tested; the technique succeeded on Anthropic’s frontier models but backfired on the others. The effect depends on the model family and the content of the request, and it does not transfer to refusals from public benchmarks.
By Til Jordan
arXiv:2609.23039v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: LLM-based AI systems answer political questions for hundreds of millions of people. Current audits measure what they say to an average user, but their...
By Joan C. Timoneda
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) replicate socio‑cognitive effects of power asymmetry observed in human communication. By assigning high or low status personas to LLMs in simulated multi‑turn dialogues across diverse professions, the study measures language coordination, pronoun usage, persuasion success, and compliance with unsafe requests. Results indicate that LLMs exhibit key power‑related socio‑cognitive behaviors, though with nuances and variability, linking these simulated interactions to both desirable and unsafe outcomes.
By Anvesh Rao Vijjini, Sagar Manjunath, Snigdha Chaturvedi
The paper introduces SILICA, an open instrument designed to evaluate whether large language model (LLM) agent societies replicate human behavioural distributions. Using five environments with human‑anchored data and perturbations, the study finds that most LLMs only match human behaviour at initial stages, failing to reproduce end‑state cooperation or correct acceptance thresholds. The results suggest that current LLM societies can support exploratory claims but do not yet reliably emulate human social dynamics.
By Raad Bin Tareaf
arXiv:2606. 16127v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The worldwide surge of authoritarianism, combined with the increasing central role in users' everyday lives, raises the question of to what extent specific models exhibit or promote authoritarian attitudes and characteristics.
By Andreas Einwiller, Max Klabunde, Florian Lemmerich
arXiv:2606. 22974v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent work on preference elicitation in large language models (LLMs) has demonstrated that, when given a series of choices between two outcomes, LLMs reveal a coherent, model-specific utility structure.
By Yujun Zhou, Christopher M. Ackerman
arXiv:2603. 23841v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as primary sources of information, their potential for political bias may impact their objectivity.
By Rohan Khetan, Ashna Khetan
arXiv:2509.08494v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: As humans delegate more tasks and decisions to artificial intelligence (AI), we risk losing control of our individual and collective futures....
By Benjamin Sturgeon, Daniel Samuelson, Jacob Haimes, Jacy Reese Anthis
The paper demonstrates that large language model (LLM) evaluators, whether reward‑model based or prompted LLM‑as‑a‑Judge, exhibit significant language bias in multilingual settings. Experiments with semantically identical instruction‑response pairs across 23 languages reveal that lower‑resource languages receive higher scores, a bias that persists across eight open‑weight evaluators and is not detectable by standard pairwise accuracy metrics. The authors link the bias to model uncertainty and language identity, showing it cannot be explained by content difficulty alone.
By Ej Zhou, Lucas Resck, Zheng Hui, Anna Korhonen
arXiv:2609.15207v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Generative AI writing assistants and the Large Language Models (LLMs) that power them are increasingly part of how voters gather information before ele...
By Bastiaan Bruinsma, Annika Fred\'en, Paul R\"ottger, Moa Johansson, Asad Sayeed
The study investigates how AI agents influence each other when they disagree, measuring persuasion as the change in an agent’s decision after a single exchange. Across seven open‑weight models and three language tasks, it finds that persuasion is strong—receivers often abandon their initial judgment after seeing a peer’s answer and explanation. Surprisingly, neither certainty nor model size reliably predicts persuasion dynamics; small models can persuade and resist larger ones just as effectively, and the shift depends more on the listener’s susceptibility than the speaker’s persuasiveness.
By Frida N{\o}hr Laustsen, Marie Haahr Petersen, Victoria Popa, Ariel Flint, Romualdo Pastor-Satorras, Andrea Baronchelli, Luca Maria Aiello
arXiv:2511. 06148v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are adopted into frameworks that grant them the capacity to make real decisions, it is increasingly important to ensure that they are unbiased.
By Addison J. Wu, Ryan Liu, Xuechunzi Bai, Thomas L. Griffiths