arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2308.03313cs.SIcs.CY
收藏

量化大语言模型对集体舆论动力学的影响

Quantifying the Impact of Large Language Models on Collective Opinion Dynamics

Chao Li, Xing Su, Haoying Han, Cong Xue, Chunmo Zheng, Chao Fan

AI总结:

本研究构建舆论网络动力学模型模拟大语言模型对集体舆论的影响,发现其输出意见影响意见差异与多样性,特定人群比例下多样性最优,引入额外智能体可缓解有害输出影响,为场景化舆论干预提供依据。

摘要:

意见表达与交流的过程是民主社会的关键组成部分。随着人们在舆论塑造过程中以不同于传统媒体的方式与大语言模型(Large Language Models, LLMs)互动,LLMs的影响正日益得到认可并引发关注。然而,关于LLMs如何影响社会舆论网络中的意见表达与交流过程的认知仍十分有限。\n在此,我们构建了一个舆论网络动力学模型,用以编码LLMs的意见、个体的认知接受度与使用策略,并模拟多种场景下LLMs对舆论动力学的影响。模拟结果为有效的需求导向型舆论网络干预提供了依据。\n研究结果表明,LLMs的输出意见对集体意见差异具有独特的正向作用。认知接受度对集体意见形成的边际效应是非线性的,且呈递减趋势。当人们部分依赖LLMs时,意见的交流过程会变得更激烈,意见多样性也会更有利。事实上,与完全禁止使用LLMs相比,当所有人都部分依赖LLMs时,意见多样性会高出38.6%。当不使用、部分依赖和完全依赖LLMs的人群比例大致达到4:12:1时,意见多样性达到最优。\n我们的实验还发现,引入持有相反/中立/随机意见的额外智能体,能够有效缓解LLMs输出的偏见性/有害性内容带来的影响。本研究发现为LLMs时代的舆论动力学提供了宝贵见解,强调需针对特定场景制定定制化干预措施,以解决LLMs输出不当与使用不当的弊端。

英文摘要:

The process of opinion expression and exchange is a critical component of democratic societies. As people interact with large language models (LLMs) in the opinion shaping process different from traditional media, the impacts of LLMs are increasingly recognized and being concerned. However, the knowledge about how LLMs affect the process of opinion expression and exchange of social opinion networks is very limited. Here, we create an opinion network dynamics model to encode the opinions of LLMs, cognitive acceptability and usage strategies of individuals, and simulate the impact of LLMs on opinion dynamics in a variety of scenarios. The outcomes of the simulations inform about effective demand-oriented opinion network interventions. The results from this study suggested that the output opinion of LLMs has a unique and positive effect on the collective opinion difference. The marginal effect of cognitive acceptability on collective opinion formation is nonlinear and shows a decreasing trend. When people partially rely on LLMs, the exchange process of opinion becomes more intense and the diversity of opinion becomes more favorable. In fact, there is 38.6% more opinion diversity when people all partially rely on LLMs, compared to prohibiting the use of LLMs entirely. The optimal diversity of opinion was found when the fractions of people who do not use, partially rely on, and fully rely on LLMs reached roughly 4:12:1. Our experiments also find that introducing extra agents with opposite/neutral/random opinions, we can effectively mitigate the impact of biased/toxic output from LLMs. Our findings provide valuable insights into opinion dynamics in the age of LLMs, highlighting the need for customized interventions tailored to specific scenarios to address the drawbacks of improper output and use of LLMs.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑