If big companies have our data, can they use in conjunction with LLMs to persuade people on hot-button political issues? Our new study, published in PNAS, puts LLMs to the test persuading people on hot-button political topics. 🧵[1/6]
Bottom line: AI can shift opinions at scale, but personalization and chat didn’t add much. If you’re curious about the ability of AI to persuade-and its limits-check out our full open-access paper:
https://t.co/zClco9ozWz [6/6]
We tested four AI-driven persuasion strategies:
1️⃣ Generic message
2️⃣ Microtargeted message
3️⃣ Interactive direct arguments
4️⃣ Motivational interviewing
All were aimed at shifting people away from their starting views, but which worked best? 🤔 [2/6]
While AI is able to move people's attitudes towards the center, this does not increase "democratic reciprocity", a willingness to engage with people who hold opposing views. This suggests that merely changing policy opinions isn't enough.[5/6]
I just had work on Language Models for quantifying eyewitness confidence statements in Psychological Science.
You can read the news brief here:
https://t.co/9OyghPDtoi
Or the full paper on SSRN:
https://t.co/mJiHHA8lsO
One of our key sources of human data is no longer fully “human"!
We estimate that 33-46% of crowd workers on MTurk used large language models (LLMs) in a text production task - which may increase as ChatGPT and the like become more popular and powerful.
https://t.co/SJfKjDM6gX
I see someone on this website has come up with a specific number of training FLOPS above which a language model becomes AGI and needs to be regulated. Very glad I logged in this morning.