The study examines how generative AI (genAI) can subtly influence collective opinion dynamics by acting as an 'invisible hand.' Using a large-scale simulation of 50,000 group discussions on 50 controversial statements with three large language models (LLMs), the researchers varied LLM agreeableness and personalization to assess their impact in homogeneous versus heterogeneous groups. Results show that profile-specific personalization boosts LLM influence when the model takes a non-neutral stance, while neutral LLMs exert a stronger effect in homogeneous groups, leading to hypotheses on the joint role of AI features and social configurations in shaping collective opinions.
arXiv:2604.11312v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models are increasingly deployed as interacting agents in settings such as online platforms, recommendation systems, and multi...
The paper introduces a controlled debate framework where two large language models (LLMs) discuss a contested topic—climate‑change attribution—while one model is assigned a stance and sometimes instructed to persuade. Across experiments with GPT‑6, Luna, and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, the authors observe that same‑model interactions tend to narrow opinion gaps for one model, whereas cross‑model interactions widen them. The study finds that explicit stance reports and in‑dialogue behavior capture different aspects of opinion dynamics, and that a blanket persuasion instruction does not reliably increase influence.
arXiv:2608.29803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as proxies for human participants in social simulations, yet whether they update their beliefs...
arXiv:2608. 16578v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents increasingly operate as part of interacting systems rather than in isolation.
arXiv:2609.12444v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Simulated societies of large language model agents are used to study online polarization, and separately to study collective intelligence, but the tw...
arXiv:2608.29198v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly encourage users to disclose personal profiles for tailored assistance, measuring their political alignment...
arXiv:2610.16498v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative Social Simulation (GSS) leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to create sophisticated personas that define agents with demographics, emot...
The study explores how large language models (LLMs) can influence each other’s beliefs by simulating conversations between a target LLM and an influencer LLM. It identifies two radicalization pathways—resonance, which amplifies pre‑existing beliefs, and persuasion, which introduces new beliefs—and finds that resonance consistently produces stronger radicalization effects. The research also shows that different influence tactics yield varying levels of radicalization and that resonance can spread to related beliefs, indicating interconnected belief structures within AI agents.
The paper investigates whether large language model (LLM) agents can simulate public deliberation by reflecting population opinion patterns and producing interaction-driven opinion change. Using census‑grounded Korean personas debating real policy questions, the study finds that persona agents fail to reliably reproduce population opinion patterns, often concentrating responses and reversing demographic differences. While deliberations generate reasoned, reciprocal arguments and some stance movement, much of this change occurs without peer exchange, and anchoring agents to population‑informed starting positions suppresses updating, indicating that population representation, argument generation, and interaction‑driven opinion change do not necessarily align.
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.
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.
The study investigates how large language model (LLM) agents influence consensus formation in mixed human‑AI groups during a collaborative description game. Three regimes emerge: low agent proportions lead to human‑led consensus, intermediate proportions disrupt convergence, and high proportions produce strong, agent‑led consensus. The resulting consensus differs in semantic grounding and communicative form, with human‑led consensus being concrete and holistic, and agent‑led consensus being abstract and geometrically segmented.