Large Language Models are as persuasive as humans, but why? About the cognitive effort and moral-emotional language of LLM arguments
2404.09329
0
0
💬
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are already as persuasive as humans. However, we know very little about how they do it. This paper investigates the persuasion strategies of LLMs, comparing them with human-generated arguments. Using a dataset of 1,251 participants in an experiment, we analyze the persuasion strategies of LLM-generated and human-generated arguments using measures of cognitive effort (lexical and grammatical complexity) and moral-emotional language (sentiment and moral analysis). The study reveals that LLMs produce arguments that require higher cognitive effort, exhibiting more complex grammatical and lexical structures than human counterparts. Additionally, LLMs demonstrate a significant propensity to engage more deeply with moral language, utilizing both positive and negative moral foundations more frequently than humans. In contrast with previous research, no significant difference was found in the emotional content produced by LLMs and humans. These findings contribute to the discourse on AI and persuasion, highlighting the dual potential of LLMs to both enhance and undermine informational integrity through communication strategies for digital persuasion.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper investigates the persuasion strategies of large language models (LLMs) and compares them to human-generated arguments.
- The researchers analyzed a dataset of 1,251 participants to examine the cognitive effort and moral-emotional language used in LLM-generated and human-generated arguments.
- The study found that LLMs produce arguments with higher cognitive effort, using more complex grammatical and lexical structures than humans.
- LLMs also demonstrated a greater propensity to engage with moral language, utilizing both positive and negative moral foundations more frequently than humans.
- No significant difference was found in the emotional content of LLM-generated and human-generated arguments.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 are becoming increasingly persuasive, but we don't fully understand why. This study investigated the persuasion strategies of LLMs and compared them to arguments made by humans.
The researchers had over 1,200 people participate in an experiment. They analyzed the arguments generated by the LLMs and the humans, looking at two key things:
- Cognitive effort: How complex were the language and grammar used in the arguments?
- Moral and emotional language: How often did the arguments use words related to moral foundations or positive/negative emotions?
The study found that the LLM-generated arguments required more cognitive effort - they used more complex grammar and vocabulary than the human-generated arguments. Interestingly, the LLMs also tended to engage more with moral language, using both positive and negative moral words more frequently than the humans.
However, there was no significant difference in the emotional content of the arguments produced by LLMs and humans. This was unexpected, as past research had suggested LLMs might struggle with emotional language.
Overall, this research sheds light on how LLMs can be surprisingly adept at crafting persuasive arguments, even surpassing human abilities in certain areas like using moral language. This has important implications for understanding the potential of LLMs to influence people's beliefs and behaviors.
Technical Explanation
This study compared the persuasion strategies of large language models (LLMs) to those of humans. The researchers used a dataset of 1,251 participants in an experiment to analyze the cognitive effort and moral-emotional language used in LLM-generated and human-generated arguments.
To measure cognitive effort, the researchers looked at lexical and grammatical complexity. They found that LLMs produced arguments with higher cognitive effort, exhibiting more complex grammatical and lexical structures than their human counterparts.
The researchers also conducted sentiment analysis and moral foundation analysis to assess the moral-emotional language used in the arguments. They discovered that LLMs demonstrated a significant propensity to engage more deeply with moral language, utilizing both positive and negative moral foundations more frequently than humans.
In contrast with previous research, the study did not find a significant difference in the emotional content of the arguments generated by LLMs and humans. This was unexpected, as past studies had suggested that LLMs might struggle with emotional language compared to their human-generated counterparts.
These findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on AI and persuasion, highlighting the dual potential of LLMs to both enhance and undermine informational integrity through their communication strategies for digital persuasion. The research suggests that LLMs may be able to craft more cognitively effortful and morally-charged arguments than humans, which could have significant implications for how they are deployed in areas such as content verification or research assistance.
Critical Analysis
The study provides valuable insights into the persuasion strategies of large language models (LLMs), but it also has some limitations that should be considered.
One potential issue is the generalizability of the findings. The experiment was conducted with a specific dataset and may not necessarily reflect the full range of capabilities and behaviors of LLMs in real-world settings. Further research with more diverse datasets and scenarios would be helpful to corroborate and expand on these results.
Additionally, while the study found that LLMs exhibited greater use of moral language compared to humans, it did not delve deeper into the nuances and potential implications of this finding. It would be interesting to explore whether the moral language used by LLMs is truly meaningful and aligned with human values, or if it is simply a surface-level mimicry of moral rhetoric.
The reliability of LLMs in generating high-quality arguments is another area that merits further investigation. While the study suggests that LLMs can produce arguments with higher cognitive effort, it does not address the validity or persuasiveness of those arguments from a substantive perspective.
Overall, this research represents an important step in understanding the persuasion strategies of large language models, but more work is needed to fully explore the implications and potential risks associated with their use in areas that rely on effective communication and argumentation.
Conclusion
This study provides valuable insights into the persuasion strategies of large language models (LLMs) by comparing them to human-generated arguments. The key findings are:
- LLMs produce arguments that require higher cognitive effort, with more complex grammatical and lexical structures than their human counterparts.
- LLMs demonstrate a significant propensity to engage more deeply with moral language, utilizing both positive and negative moral foundations more frequently than humans.
- There was no significant difference in the emotional content of arguments generated by LLMs and humans, contrary to previous research.
These findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on the capabilities and potential impacts of LLMs in areas such as content verification, research assistance, and digital persuasion. While the study has limitations, it highlights the need for further research to fully understand the implications of LLMs' communication strategies and their potential to both enhance and undermine informational integrity.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
💬
New!Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models in Computational Argumentation
Guizhen Chen, Liying Cheng, Luu Anh Tuan, Lidong Bing
0
0
Computational argumentation has become an essential tool in various domains, including law, public policy, and artificial intelligence. It is an emerging research field in natural language processing that attracts increasing attention. Research on computational argumentation mainly involves two types of tasks: argument mining and argument generation. As large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in understanding context and generating natural language, it is worthwhile to evaluate the performance of LLMs on diverse computational argumentation tasks. This work aims to embark on an assessment of LLMs, such as ChatGPT, Flan models, and LLaMA2 models, in both zero-shot and few-shot settings. We organize existing tasks into six main categories and standardize the format of fourteen openly available datasets. In addition, we present a new benchmark dataset on counter speech generation that aims to holistically evaluate the end-to-end performance of LLMs on argument mining and argument generation. Extensive experiments show that LLMs exhibit commendable performance across most of the datasets, demonstrating their capabilities in the field of argumentation. Our analysis offers valuable suggestions for evaluating computational argumentation and its integration with LLMs in future research endeavors.
7/2/2024
💬
Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Decision-Making
Gabriel Freedman, Adam Dejl, Deniz Gorur, Xiang Yin, Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni
0
0
The diversity of knowledge encoded in large language models (LLMs) and their ability to apply this knowledge zero-shot in a range of settings makes them a promising candidate for use in decision-making. However, they are currently limited by their inability to reliably provide outputs which are explainable and contestable. In this paper, we attempt to reconcile these strengths and weaknesses by introducing a method for supplementing LLMs with argumentative reasoning. Concretely, we introduce argumentative LLMs, a method utilising LLMs to construct argumentation frameworks, which then serve as the basis for formal reasoning in decision-making. The interpretable nature of these argumentation frameworks and formal reasoning means that any decision made by the supplemented LLM may be naturally explained to, and contested by, humans. We demonstrate the effectiveness of argumentative LLMs experimentally in the decision-making task of claim verification. We obtain results that are competitive with, and in some cases surpass, comparable state-of-the-art techniques.
5/6/2024
💬
Large Language Models as Instruments of Power: New Regimes of Autonomous Manipulation and Control
Yaqub Chaudhary, Jonnie Penn
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) can reproduce a wide variety of rhetorical styles and generate text that expresses a broad spectrum of sentiments. This capacity, now available at low cost, makes them powerful tools for manipulation and control. In this paper, we consider a set of underestimated societal harms made possible by the rapid and largely unregulated adoption of LLMs. Rather than consider LLMs as isolated digital artefacts used to displace this or that area of work, we focus on the large-scale computational infrastructure upon which they are instrumentalised across domains. We begin with discussion on how LLMs may be used to both pollute and uniformize information environments and how these modalities may be leveraged as mechanisms of control. We then draw attention to several areas of emerging research, each of which compounds the capabilities of LLMs as instruments of power. These include (i) persuasion through the real-time design of choice architectures in conversational interfaces (e.g., via AI personas), (ii) the use of LLM-agents as computational models of human agents (e.g., silicon subjects), (iii) the use of LLM-agents as computational models of human agent populations (e.g., silicon societies) and finally, (iv) the combination of LLMs with reinforcement learning to produce controllable and steerable strategic dialogue models. We draw these strands together to discuss how these areas may be combined to build LLM-based systems that serve as powerful instruments of individual, social and political control via the simulation and disingenuous prediction of human behaviour, intent, and action.
5/8/2024
🏅
Can formal argumentative reasoning enhance LLMs performances?
Federico Castagna, Isabel Sassoon, Simon Parsons
0
0
Recent years witnessed significant performance advancements in deep-learning-driven natural language models, with a strong focus on the development and release of Large Language Models (LLMs). These improvements resulted in better quality AI-generated output but rely on resource-expensive training and upgrading of models. Although different studies have proposed a range of techniques to enhance LLMs without retraining, none have considered computational argumentation as an option. This is a missed opportunity since computational argumentation is an intuitive mechanism that formally captures agents' interactions and the information conflict that may arise during such interplays, and so it seems well-suited for boosting the reasoning and conversational abilities of LLMs in a seamless manner. In this paper, we present a pipeline (MQArgEng) and preliminary study to evaluate the effect of introducing computational argumentation semantics on the performance of LLMs. Our experiment's goal was to provide a proof-of-concept and a feasibility analysis in order to foster (or deter) future research towards a fully-fledged argumentation engine plugin for LLMs. Exploratory results using the MT-Bench indicate that MQArgEng provides a moderate performance gain in most of the examined topical categories and, as such, show promise and warrant further research.
5/24/2024