Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Quantifying the Impact of Large Language Models on Collective Opinion Dynamics

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2308.03313 v2 pith:NEY4JUKT submitted 2023-08-07 cs.SI cs.CY

classification cs.SIcs.CY
keywords opinionllmsdynamicspeopleprocessrelycollectivediversity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 4 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Training with (Swap) Regret Loss in a Single-Layer Self-Attention Model: A Case Study on the Probability Simplex

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Training single-layer attention with squared regret loss has stationary points that implement smoothed fictitious play (external regret) and, via a new swap-regret loss, the Blum–Mansour no-swap-regret algorithm.

  2. Eco3S: Complex Socio-Economic System Simulation via Agent-Based Models

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Eco3S packages co-evolving environments, checkpoint counterfactuals, and auto-refinement into one LLM agent-based simulation platform, demonstrated on canal-rebellion, state-formation, and information-spread cases.

  3. Towards Simulating Social Influence Dynamics with LLM-based Multi-agents

    cs.MA 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In simulated BBS-style discussions, reasoning-focused LLM agents show lower conformity and more persistent dissent than standard generative models, though no human baseline validates the simulation.

Pith tools