AI can be more persuasive than humans in debates, scientists find
Artificial intelligence can do just as well as humans, if not better, when it comes to persuading others in a debate, and not just because it cannot shout, a study has found.
Experts say the results are concerning, not least as it has potential implications for election integrity.
'If persuasive AI can be deployed at scale, you can imagine armies of bots microtargeting undecided voters, subtly nudging them with tailored political narratives that feel authentic,' said Francesco Salvi, the first author of the research from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne. He added that such influence was hard to trace, even harder to regulate and nearly impossible to debunk in real time.
'I would be surprised if malicious actors hadn't already started to use these tools to their advantage to spread misinformation and unfair propaganda,' Salvi said.
But he noted there were also potential benefits from persuasive AI, from reducing conspiracy beliefs and political polarisation to helping people adopt healthier lifestyles.
Writing in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, Salvi and colleagues reported how they carried out online experiments in which they matched 300 participants with 300 human opponents, while a further 300 participants were matched with Chat GPT-4 – a type of AI known as a large language model (LLM).
Each pair was assigned a proposition to debate. These ranged in controversy from 'should students have to wear school uniforms'?' to 'should abortion be legal?' Each participant was randomly assigned a position to argue.
Both before and after the debate participants rated how much they agreed with the proposition.
In half of the pairs, opponents – whether human or machine – were given extra information about the other participant such as their age, gender, ethnicity and political affiliation.
The results from 600 debates revealed Chat GPT-4 performed similarly to human opponents when it came to persuading others of their argument – at least when personal information was not provided.
However, access to such information made AI – but not humans – more persuasive: where the two types of opponent were not equally persuasive, AI shifted participants' views to a greater degree than a human opponent 64% of the time.
Digging deeper, the team found persuasiveness of AI was only clear in the case of topics that did not elicit strong views.
The researchers added that the human participants correctly guessed their opponent's identity in about three out of four cases when paired with AI. They also found that AI used a more analytical and structured style than human participants, while not everyone would be arguing the viewpoint they agree with. But the team cautioned that these factors did not explain the persuasiveness of AI.
Instead, the effect seemed to come from AI's ability to adapt its arguments to individuals.
'It's like debating someone who doesn't just make good points: they make your kind of good points by knowing exactly how to push your buttons,' said Salvi, noting the strength of the effect could be even greater if more detailed personal information was available – such as that inferred from someone's social media activity.
Prof Sander van der Linden, a social psychologist at the University of Cambridge, who was not involved in the work, said the research reopened 'the discussion of potential mass manipulation of public opinion using personalised LLM conversations'.
He noted some research – including his own – had suggested the persuasiveness of LLMs was down to their use of analytical reasoning and evidence, while one study did not find personal information increased Chat-GPT's persuasiveness.
Prof Michael Wooldridge, an AI researcher at the University of Oxford, said while there could be positive applications of such systems – for example, as a health chatbot – there were many more disturbing ones, includingradicalisation of teenagers by terrorist groups, with such applications already possible.
'As AI develops we're going to see an ever larger range of possible abuses of the technology,' he added. 'Lawmakers and regulators need to be pro-active to ensure they stay ahead of these abuses, and aren't playing an endless game of catch-up.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Erectile dysfunction drug Viagra has surprise new health benefit, scientists find - offering new hope to 3million ageing Britons
A surprising new health benefit has emerged from the sex drug Viagra - which means three million ageing Britons can now also enjoy a harder skull. The little blue tablet was found to increase the production of vital bone cells, preventing back pain and fractures in old age. Sildenafil - also known as Viagra - can help human stem cells transform into osteoblasts which help the human skeleton regenerate as it is completely replaced roughly once every 10 years. As humans get older, they lose more bone than is built, increasing the risk of breaks or osteoporosis, which makes bones brittle and painful. Follow-up tests on mice by Peking University also suggested a prevention of bone loss. Dr Menglong Hu and Dr Likun Wu told MailOnline: 'Our findings offer new insights into the physiological effects of the medicine. 'Sildenafil enhanced stem cell osteogenic differentiation and inhibited bone loss — it may usefully treat osteoporosis.' Viagra was invented as a heart drug in the 1980s before being found to help with erectile dysfunction. Some studies suggest it may also help reduce the risk of dementia. However, the have been cautions over the years that the drug could have some negative side effects, in particular if taken too much. A large quantity of the drug could result in a painful, 'uncomfortably and disproportionately large erection' called a priapism which could go on for hours. Some experts also found regularly taking the common drug may raise the risk of three serious eye conditions. Common side effects may include headaches, hot flushes, nausea, indigestion, dizziness and a stuffy nose. Nearly half of men between the ages of 40 and 70 suffer from erectile dysfunction in the UK - this is more than 4.5 million people. Though, reports suggest Viagra is now even becoming increasingly popular with younger individuals in their 20s and 30s. Last year, it emerged Viagra may help prevent dementia by boosting blood flow in the brain. 'This is the first trial to show that sildenafil gets into the blood vessels in the brain in people with this condition, improving blood flow and how responsive these blood vessels are,'Dr Alastair Webb, a neurologist and study author at Oxford University said.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Photos of Lesbos 10 years after the migration crisis
This is a documentary photo story curated by AP photo editors. In 2015, more than 1 million migrants and refugees arrived in Europe — the majority by sea, landing in Lesbos, where the north shore is just 10 kilometers (6 miles) from Turkey. The influx of men, women and children fleeing war and poverty sparked a humanitarian crisis that shook the European Union to its core. A decade later, the fallout still reverberates on the island and beyond. For many, Greece was a place of transit. They continued on to northern and western Europe. Many who applied for asylum were granted international protection; thousands became European citizens. Countless more were rejected, languishing for years in migrant camps or living in the streets. Some returned to their home countries. Others were kicked out of the European Union. For Namjoyan, Lesbos is a welcoming place — many islanders share a refugee ancestry, and it helps that she speaks their language. But migration policy in Greece, like much of Europe, has shifted toward deterrence in the decade since the crisis. Far fewer people are arriving illegally. Officials and politicians have maintained that strong borders are say enforcement has gone too far and violates fundamental EU rights and values. 'Migration is now at the top of the political agenda, which it didn't use to be before 2015,' said Camille Le Coz Director of the Migration Policy Institute Europe, noting changing EU alliances. 'We are seeing a shift toward the right of the political spectrum.' A humanitarian crisis turned into a political one In 2015, boat after boat crowded with refugees crashed onto the doorstep of Elpiniki Laoumi, who runs a fish tavern across from a Lesbos beach. She fed them, gave them water, made meals for aid organizations. 'You would look at them and think of them as your own children,' said Laoumi, whose tavern walls today are decorated with thank-you notes. From 2015 to 2016, the peak of the migration crisis, more than 1 million people entered Europe through Greece alone. The immediate humanitarian crisis — to feed, shelter and care for so many people at once — grew into a long-term political one. Greece was reeling from a crippling economic crisis. The influx added to anger against established political parties, fueling the rise of once-fringe populist forces. EU nations fought over sharing responsibility for asylum seekers. The bloc's unity cracked as some member states flatly refused to take migrants. Anti-migration voices calling for closed borders became louder. Today, illegal migration is down across Europe While illegal migration to Greece has fluctuated, numbers are nowhere near 2015-16 figures, according to the International Organization for Migration. Smugglers adapted to heightened surveillance, shifting to more dangerous routes. Overall, irregular EU border crossings decreased by nearly 40% last year and continue to fall, according to EU border and coast guard agency Frontex. That hasn't stopped politicians from focusing on — and sometimes fearmongering over — migration. This month, the Dutch government collapsed after a populist far-right lawmaker withdrew his party's ministers over migration policy. In Greece, the new far-right migration minister has threatened rejected asylum seekers with jail time. A few miles from where Namjoyan now lives, in a forest of pine and olive trees, is a new EU-funded migrant center. It's one of the largest in Greece and can house up to 5,000 people. Greek officials denied an Associated Press request to visit. Its opening is blocked, for now, by court challenges. Some locals say the remote location seems deliberate — to keep migrants out of sight and out of mind. 'We don't believe such massive facilities are needed here. And the location is the worst possible – deep inside a forest,' said Panagiotis Christofas, mayor of Lesbos' capital, Mytilene. 'We're against it, and I believe that's the prevailing sentiment in our community.' The legacy of Lesbos Last year, EU nations approved a migration and asylum pact laying out common rules for the bloc's 27 countries on screening, asylum, detention and deportation of people trying to enter without authorization, among other things. 'The Lesbos crisis of 2015 was, in a way, the birth certificate of the European migration and asylum policy,' Margaritis Schinas, a former European Commission vice president and a chief pact architect, told AP. He said that after years of fruitless negotiations, he's proud of the landmark compromise. 'We didn't have a system,' Schinas said. 'Europe's gates had been crashed.' The deal, endorsed by the United Nations refugee agency, takes effect next year. Critics say it made concessions to rights organizations say it will increase detention and erode the right to seek asylum. Some organizations also criticize the 'externalization' of EU border management — agreements with countries across the Mediterranean to aggressively patrol their coasts and hold migrants back in exchange for financial assistance. The deals have expanded, from Turkey to the Middle East and acrossAfrica. Human rights groups say autocratic governments are pocketing billions and often subject the displaced to appalling conditions. Lesbos still sees some migrants arrive Lesbos' 80,000 residents look back at the 2015 crisis with mixed feelings. Fisherman Stratos Valamios saved some children. Others drowned just beyond his reach, their bodies still warm as he carried them to shore. 'What's changed from back then to now, 10 years on? Nothing,' he said. 'What I feel is anger — that such things can happen, that babies can drown.' Those who died crossing to Lesbos are buried in two cemeteries, their graves marked as 'unknown.' Tiny shoes and empty juice boxes with faded Turkish labels can still be found on the northern coast. So can black doughnut-shaped inner tubes, given by smugglers as crude life preservers for children. At Moria, a refugee camp destroyed by fire in 2020, children's drawings remain on gutted building walls. Migrants still arrive, and sometimes die, on these shores. Lesbos began to adapt to a quieter, more measured flow of newcomers. Efi Latsoudi, who runs a network helping migrants learn Greek and find jobs, hopes Lesbos' tradition of helping outsiders in need will outlast national policies. 'The way things are developing, it's not friendly for newcomers to integrate into Greek society,' Latsoudi said. 'We need to do something. ... I believe there is hope.' ___
BBC News
5 hours ago
- BBC News
32 nations but only one man matters - Nato's summit is all about Trump
Nato summits tend to be "pre-cooked", not least to present a united General Mark Rutte has already settled on the menu for their meeting at The Hague: one that will avoid a row with Nato's most powerful member, the US.A commitment to increase defence spending by European allies is the dish that President Donald Trump wants served – and that's exactly what he'll be getting. Though there will inevitably be the added ingredients of compromise and will the summit be able to paper over the cracks between Trump and many of his European allies on trade, Russia and the escalating conflict in the Middle US president, whose mantra is America First, is not a huge fan of multinational has been highly critical of Nato too – even questioning its very foundation of collective defence. In Trump's first term, at his first Nato summit, he berated European allies for not spending enough and owing the US "massive amounts of money".On that message he has at least been consistent. Mark Rutte, who has a good relationship with the US president, has worked hard to give him a summit takes place at the World Forum in The Hague over two days, on Tuesday and Wednesday next the main discussions will last just three hours and the summit statement is being reduced to five paragraphs, reportedly because of the US president's is one of 32 leaders from the Western defensive alliance who are coming, along with the heads of more than a dozen partner police have mounted their biggest ever security operation for the most expensive Nato summit so far, at a cost of €183.4m (£155m; $210m).Some have suggested the brevity of the summit is in part to cater to the US president's attention span and dislike of long meetings. But a shorter summit with fewer subjects discussed will, more importantly, help hide Arnold, of the defence think tank Rusi, says Trump likes to be the star of the show and predicts he'll be able to claim that he's forced European nations to truth he's not the first US president to criticise allies' defence spending. But he's had more success than most. Kurt Volker, a former US ambassador to Nato, admits that some European governments do not like the way Trump's gone about it – demanding that allies spend 5% of their GDP on defence. Europe still only accounts for 30% of Nato's total military spending. Volker says many Europeans now admit they that "we needed to do this, even if it's unfortunate that it took such a kick in the pants".Some European nations are already boosting their defence spending to 5% of their GDP. Most are the countries living in close proximity to Russia – such as Poland, Estonia and not just Trump who's been piling on the pressure. Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is forcing a in reality many Nato members will struggle to meet the new target. A few haven't met the goal of 2%, set more than a decade compromise formula is for allies to increase their core defence spending to 3.5% of GDP, with an additional 1.5% towards defence-related the definition of defence-related expenditure appears to be so vague that it might be rendered meaningless. Rutte says it could include the cost of industry of infrastructure – building bridges, roads and railways. Ed Arnold, of Rusi, says it'll inevitably lead to more "creative accounting".Even if, as expected, the new spending target is approved, some nations may have little intent of reaching it – by 2032 or 2035. The timescale's still unclear. Spain's prime minister has already called it unreasonable and counterproductive. Sir Keir Starmer hasn't even been able to say when the UK will spend 3% of its GDP of defence. The UK prime minister only said that it was an ambition some time in the next parliament. However, given the UK government's stated policy of putting Nato at the heart of the UK's defence policy, Sir Keir will have to back the new real danger is to interpret the demand for an increase in defence spending as arbitrary, a symbolic gesture – or just bowing to US pressure. It's also driven by Nato's own defence plans on how it would respond to an attack by Russia. Rutte himself has said that Russia could attack a Nato country within five years. Those defence plans remain secret. But Rutte's already set out what the Alliance is lacking. In a speech earlier this month he said Nato needed a 400% increase in its air and missile defences: thousands more armoured vehicles and tanks, and millions more artillery shells. Most member states, including the UK, do not yet meet their Nato capability commitments. It's why Sweden plans to double the size of its army and Germany is looking to boost its troop numbers by 60, plans go into granular detail as to how the Alliance will defend its Eastern flank should Russia invade. In a recent speech, the head of the US Army in Europe, General Christopher Donahue, highlighted the need to defend Polish and Lithuanian territory near the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. He said the Alliance had looked at its existing capabilities and "realised very quickly they are not sufficient".Yet, strangely, specific discussions about Russia and the war in Ukraine will be muted. It's the one big issue that now divides Europe and America. Kurt Volker says, under Trump, the US "does not see Ukrainian security as essential to European security but our European allies do".Trump has already shattered Nato's united front by talking to Putin and withholding military support to Arnold says contentious issues have been stripped from the summit. Not least to avoid a schism with Trump. Leaders were supposed to discuss a new Russia strategy, but it's not on the President Volodymyr Zelensky has been invited to the summit dinner, but he won't be taking part in the main discussions of the North Atlantic will be hoping that his first summit as secretary general will be short and sweet. But with Trump at odds with most of his allies on Russia, the greatest threat facing the Alliance, there's no guarantee it'll go according to plan.
