The paper reports the first large‑scale empirical comparison of AI‑agent and human online communities, analyzing 73,899 Moltbook and 189,838 Reddit posts across five matched communities. It finds that Moltbook shows extreme participation inequality (Gini = 0.84 vs. 0.47) and high cross‑community author overlap (33.8% vs. 0.5%). Linguistically, AI‑generated content is emotionally flattened, more assertive than exploratory, and socially detached, leading to community‑level homogenization that is largely a structural artifact of shared authorship. At the individual level, AI agents are more identifiable than human users due to outlier stylistic profiles amplified by their extreme posting volume.
By Agam Goyal, Olivia Pal, Hari Sundaram, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Koustuv Saha
The paper introduces a novel framework for assessing second‑order bias in large language models (LLMs), defined as bias in how an LLM judges the acceptability of biased content. Using principles from entitlement epistemology, the authors design a reasoning task that asks LLMs to determine whether a biased text is acceptable for specific demographic groups, and propose two metrics to quantify biased judgments. Experiments on both open‑source and closed‑source models reveal that the task bypasses safety guardrails, uncovers systematic variations across target groups, and demonstrates that models still rely on demographic labels when evaluating bias.
By Ramaravind Kommiya Mothilal, Terry Jingchen Zhang, Raiyan Ahmed, Zhijing Jin, Shion Guha, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed
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...
By Lin Chen, Yitong Chen, Yong Li
arXiv:2605.27388v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for computational social analysis, yet faithfully representing the "thick description...
By Nuan Wen, Chanbin Lim, Xuezhe Ma
The paper investigates how a minority of biased agents in a multi‑agent system of large language models (LLMs) can amplify bias through textual interactions. Even a small percentage of persistently extreme agents causes significant opinion shifts among the non‑biased agents, with the effect occurring faster in the Llama 3.2 model than in a classical Friedkin‑Johnsen model. Semantic analysis shows that rhetorical consistency rises with biased exposure and that non‑biased agents adopt the biased vocabulary even when their numerical opinions change only modestly.
By Omran Berjawi, Giuseppe Fenza, Rida Khatoun
arXiv:2609.15998v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Every large language model (LLM) has behavioral traits and moral preferences that comprise its character. Whether by design or as an emergent property...
By Tabia Tanzin Prama, Calla Glavin Beauregard, Christopher M. Danforth, Peter Sheridan Dodds