-
Large Language Models Are More Persuasive Than Incentivized Human Persuaders
Authors:
Philipp Schoenegger,
Francesco Salvi,
Jiacheng Liu,
Xiaoli Nan,
Ramit Debnath,
Barbara Fasolo,
Evelina Leivada,
Gabriel Recchia,
Fritz Günther,
Ali Zarifhonarvar,
Joe Kwon,
Zahoor Ul Islam,
Marco Dehnert,
Daryl Y. H. Lee,
Madeline G. Reinecke,
David G. Kamper,
Mert Kobaş,
Adam Sandford,
Jonas Kgomo,
Luke Hewitt,
Shreya Kapoor,
Kerem Oktar,
Eyup Engin Kucuk,
Bo Feng,
Cameron R. Jones
, et al. (15 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
We directly compare the persuasion capabilities of a frontier large language model (LLM; Claude Sonnet 3.5) against incentivized human persuaders in an interactive, real-time conversational quiz setting. In this preregistered, large-scale incentivized experiment, participants (quiz takers) completed an online quiz where persuaders (either humans or LLMs) attempted to persuade quiz takers toward co…
▽ More
We directly compare the persuasion capabilities of a frontier large language model (LLM; Claude Sonnet 3.5) against incentivized human persuaders in an interactive, real-time conversational quiz setting. In this preregistered, large-scale incentivized experiment, participants (quiz takers) completed an online quiz where persuaders (either humans or LLMs) attempted to persuade quiz takers toward correct or incorrect answers. We find that LLM persuaders achieved significantly higher compliance with their directional persuasion attempts than incentivized human persuaders, demonstrating superior persuasive capabilities in both truthful (toward correct answers) and deceptive (toward incorrect answers) contexts. We also find that LLM persuaders significantly increased quiz takers' accuracy, leading to higher earnings, when steering quiz takers toward correct answers, and significantly decreased their accuracy, leading to lower earnings, when steering them toward incorrect answers. Overall, our findings suggest that AI's persuasion capabilities already exceed those of humans that have real-money bonuses tied to performance. Our findings of increasingly capable AI persuaders thus underscore the urgency of emerging alignment and governance frameworks.
△ Less
Submitted 21 May, 2025; v1 submitted 14 May, 2025;
originally announced May 2025.
-
Could ChatGPT get an Engineering Degree? Evaluating Higher Education Vulnerability to AI Assistants
Authors:
Beatriz Borges,
Negar Foroutan,
Deniz Bayazit,
Anna Sotnikova,
Syrielle Montariol,
Tanya Nazaretzky,
Mohammadreza Banaei,
Alireza Sakhaeirad,
Philippe Servant,
Seyed Parsa Neshaei,
Jibril Frej,
Angelika Romanou,
Gail Weiss,
Sepideh Mamooler,
Zeming Chen,
Simin Fan,
Silin Gao,
Mete Ismayilzada,
Debjit Paul,
Alexandre Schöpfer,
Andrej Janchevski,
Anja Tiede,
Clarence Linden,
Emanuele Troiani,
Francesco Salvi
, et al. (65 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
AI assistants are being increasingly used by students enrolled in higher education institutions. While these tools provide opportunities for improved teaching and education, they also pose significant challenges for assessment and learning outcomes. We conceptualize these challenges through the lens of vulnerability, the potential for university assessments and learning outcomes to be impacted by…
▽ More
AI assistants are being increasingly used by students enrolled in higher education institutions. While these tools provide opportunities for improved teaching and education, they also pose significant challenges for assessment and learning outcomes. We conceptualize these challenges through the lens of vulnerability, the potential for university assessments and learning outcomes to be impacted by student use of generative AI. We investigate the potential scale of this vulnerability by measuring the degree to which AI assistants can complete assessment questions in standard university-level STEM courses. Specifically, we compile a novel dataset of textual assessment questions from 50 courses at EPFL and evaluate whether two AI assistants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adequately answer these questions. We use eight prompting strategies to produce responses and find that GPT-4 answers an average of 65.8% of questions correctly, and can even produce the correct answer across at least one prompting strategy for 85.1% of questions. When grouping courses in our dataset by degree program, these systems already pass non-project assessments of large numbers of core courses in various degree programs, posing risks to higher education accreditation that will be amplified as these models improve. Our results call for revising program-level assessment design in higher education in light of advances in generative AI.
△ Less
Submitted 27 November, 2024; v1 submitted 7 August, 2024;
originally announced August 2024.
-
On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Authors:
Francesco Salvi,
Manoel Horta Ribeiro,
Riccardo Gallotti,
Robert West
Abstract:
The development and popularization of large language models (LLMs) have raised concerns that they will be used to create tailor-made, convincing arguments to push false or misleading narratives online. Early work has found that language models can generate content perceived as at least on par and often more persuasive than human-written messages. However, there is still limited knowledge about LLM…
▽ More
The development and popularization of large language models (LLMs) have raised concerns that they will be used to create tailor-made, convincing arguments to push false or misleading narratives online. Early work has found that language models can generate content perceived as at least on par and often more persuasive than human-written messages. However, there is still limited knowledge about LLMs' persuasive capabilities in direct conversations with human counterparts and how personalization can improve their performance. In this pre-registered study, we analyze the effect of AI-driven persuasion in a controlled, harmless setting. We create a web-based platform where participants engage in short, multiple-round debates with a live opponent. Each participant is randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions, corresponding to a two-by-two factorial design: (1) Games are either played between two humans or between a human and an LLM; (2) Personalization might or might not be enabled, granting one of the two players access to basic sociodemographic information about their opponent. We found that participants who debated GPT-4 with access to their personal information had 81.7% (p < 0.01; N=820 unique participants) higher odds of increased agreement with their opponents compared to participants who debated humans. Without personalization, GPT-4 still outperforms humans, but the effect is lower and statistically non-significant (p=0.31). Overall, our results suggest that concerns around personalization are meaningful and have important implications for the governance of social media and the design of new online environments.
△ Less
Submitted 21 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
MEDITRON-70B: Scaling Medical Pretraining for Large Language Models
Authors:
Zeming Chen,
Alejandro Hernández Cano,
Angelika Romanou,
Antoine Bonnet,
Kyle Matoba,
Francesco Salvi,
Matteo Pagliardini,
Simin Fan,
Andreas Köpf,
Amirkeivan Mohtashami,
Alexandre Sallinen,
Alireza Sakhaeirad,
Vinitra Swamy,
Igor Krawczuk,
Deniz Bayazit,
Axel Marmet,
Syrielle Montariol,
Mary-Anne Hartley,
Martin Jaggi,
Antoine Bosselut
Abstract:
Large language models (LLMs) can potentially democratize access to medical knowledge. While many efforts have been made to harness and improve LLMs' medical knowledge and reasoning capacities, the resulting models are either closed-source (e.g., PaLM, GPT-4) or limited in scale (<= 13B parameters), which restricts their abilities. In this work, we improve access to large-scale medical LLMs by rele…
▽ More
Large language models (LLMs) can potentially democratize access to medical knowledge. While many efforts have been made to harness and improve LLMs' medical knowledge and reasoning capacities, the resulting models are either closed-source (e.g., PaLM, GPT-4) or limited in scale (<= 13B parameters), which restricts their abilities. In this work, we improve access to large-scale medical LLMs by releasing MEDITRON: a suite of open-source LLMs with 7B and 70B parameters adapted to the medical domain. MEDITRON builds on Llama-2 (through our adaptation of Nvidia's Megatron-LM distributed trainer), and extends pretraining on a comprehensively curated medical corpus, including selected PubMed articles, abstracts, and internationally-recognized medical guidelines. Evaluations using four major medical benchmarks show significant performance gains over several state-of-the-art baselines before and after task-specific finetuning. Overall, MEDITRON achieves a 6% absolute performance gain over the best public baseline in its parameter class and 3% over the strongest baseline we finetuned from Llama-2. Compared to closed-source LLMs, MEDITRON-70B outperforms GPT-3.5 and Med-PaLM and is within 5% of GPT-4 and 10% of Med-PaLM-2. We release our code for curating the medical pretraining corpus and the MEDITRON model weights to drive open-source development of more capable medical LLMs.
△ Less
Submitted 27 November, 2023;
originally announced November 2023.
-
Studying Lobby Influence in the European Parliament
Authors:
Aswin Suresh,
Lazar Radojevic,
Francesco Salvi,
Antoine Magron,
Victor Kristof,
Matthias Grossglauser
Abstract:
We present a method based on natural language processing (NLP), for studying the influence of interest groups (lobbies) in the law-making process in the European Parliament (EP). We collect and analyze novel datasets of lobbies' position papers and speeches made by members of the EP (MEPs). By comparing these texts on the basis of semantic similarity and entailment, we are able to discover interpr…
▽ More
We present a method based on natural language processing (NLP), for studying the influence of interest groups (lobbies) in the law-making process in the European Parliament (EP). We collect and analyze novel datasets of lobbies' position papers and speeches made by members of the EP (MEPs). By comparing these texts on the basis of semantic similarity and entailment, we are able to discover interpretable links between MEPs and lobbies. In the absence of a ground-truth dataset of such links, we perform an indirect validation by comparing the discovered links with a dataset, which we curate, of retweet links between MEPs and lobbies, and with the publicly disclosed meetings of MEPs. Our best method achieves an AUC score of 0.77 and performs significantly better than several baselines. Moreover, an aggregate analysis of the discovered links, between groups of related lobbies and political groups of MEPs, correspond to the expectations from the ideology of the groups (e.g., center-left groups are associated with social causes). We believe that this work, which encompasses the methodology, datasets, and results, is a step towards enhancing the transparency of the intricate decision-making processes within democratic institutions.
△ Less
Submitted 20 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
