AI中介会放大网络偏见,改变集体观点走向。
AI-Mediated Communication Can Steer Collective Opinion

- 让AI修改争议性文本时引入定向偏见,如倾向控枪、反对无神论。
- 模型模拟显示,网络传播会使AI引入的偏见被放大,改变整体观点分布。
- 平台可控制此类偏见,但设计选择可能隐藏立场,需监管干预。
生成式人工智能(AI)正日益融入人类交流的在线平台,大型语言模型(LLMs)如今在领英上润色用户帖子,并为推特(X)上的内容提供上下文。尽管先前研究已表明AI在人机互动中可能表现出偏见并影响个体观点,但对其在中介人际沟通时对集体观点形成的影响关注较少。我们通过实证与理论分析填补这一空白。实证发现,多个主流家族的LLM在修改有争议话题的人类文本时引入方向性偏见,例如偏向控枪、反对无神论。基于此观察,我们提出一个数学模型,其中AI系统位于社交网络用户之间,转换他们表达和感知的观点。通过解析该模型的均衡状态并在真实社交网络数据上进行仿真,我们发现AI在人际沟通中引入的偏见可通过网络放大,使其向特定方向转移集体观点。鉴于这些发现,我们调查了平台是否能控制此类偏见。我们审计了推特(X)的“解释此帖”功能,发现格罗克(Grok)在堕胎相关内容输出中存在亲生命偏见,这可追溯至特定设计选择。最后,我们讨论了这些发现对欧盟当前立法进程的广泛影响。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into the online platforms where humans exchange opinions; large language models (LLMs) now polish users' posts on LinkedIn and provide context for content shared on X. While prior work has shown that AI can express biased opinions and shape individuals' opinions during human-AI interactions, less attention has been paid to its influence on collective opinion formation when mediating human-to-human communication. We address this gap via a combination of empirical and theoretical analyses. We show empirically that LLMs from multiple popular families introduce directional biases when instructed to edit human-written texts on contested topics, for example, nudging texts in favor of gun control and against atheism. Building on this observation, we introduce a mathematical model of opinion dynamics in which an AI system sits between users on a social network, transforming the opinions they express and perceive. By analytically characterizing the equilibrium of this model and performing simulations on real social network data, we show that biases introduced by AI in human-to-human communication can be amplified through the network and shift collective opinion in their direction. In light of these findings, we investigate whether such biases are controllable by online platforms. We audit the "Explain this post" feature on X and find evidence of pro-life bias in Grok's outputs on abortion-related content, which we trace back to specific design choices. We conclude with a discussion of the broader implications of our findings in relation to ongoing legislative efforts in the European Union.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。