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: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. 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:2601. 05050v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to be persuasive across a variety of contexts.
arXiv:2608.21389v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Generative AI enables customized misinformation at scale, yet defenses remain largely reactive. We present empirical findings from a human-subject st...
arXiv:2608. 15746v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present a forensic analysis of the generation pipeline behind a recent AI-driven influence campaign.
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.
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.
The paper presents an agentic framework for detecting conspiratorial content in social media by inferring the speaker’s intent rather than merely identifying explicit claims. It leverages social context and adaptive tool use, demonstrating superior performance over text-only and non-agentic models on a large Hebrew tweet dataset spanning election cycles and the COVID pandemic. The study highlights the importance of context-aware, reasoning-driven approaches for accurate conspiracy detection.
arXiv:2609.13579v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety research often focuses on model-generated harms, but users may also direct hostility, coercion, and adversarial pressure at models. Understandin...
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to assist writing, but this study shows they alter both tone and meaning of human text. A user study found that heavy LLM use increased neutral essays by nearly 70% and made writers feel less creative and less in their voice. Even when prompted to make only grammar edits, LLMs changed the semantic content of essays and produced AI-generated scientific reviews that were less focused on clarity and significance and scored higher on average.
The paper investigates how well large language models (LLMs) can handle character attacks—ad hominem arguments—in political debates. By analyzing natural political dialogues and comparing LLM-generated responses to a corpus of U.S. presidential debates, the study finds that most LLMs favor logical defenses and rarely use ethos-based counterattacks. The authors suggest that safety fine‑tuning limits LLMs’ strategic options, preventing them from fully engaging in realistic political discourse.
arXiv:2606. 08076v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate high-quality arguments, yet their ability to engage in nuanced and persuasive communicative actions remains largely unexplored.