RECORD
AI out-persuades expert humans in text-based dialogue
Computers and Society · Submitted 15 Jun 2026
abstract compiled · 2026-11-09 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim Together, these results establish that frontier AI systems out-persuade expert humans in text-based conversation, with significant implications for political communication.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
Many societal decisions are settled by contests of persuasion. Conversational AI is a powerful new entrant in these contests, but whether it can out-persuade skilled and highly incentivized humans has remained unclear. Here, in a series of four preregistered experiments (n = 18,978 conversations from 6,923 people), we pitted AI systems against a range of human persuaders, including laypeople, winners of a separately preregistered four-round online persuasion tournament, professional canvassers, and world championship debaters. We found that AI systems were reliably more persuasive than expert humans, even when expert humans chose their issues, researched in advance, underwent hours of live, structured practice, and were incentivized with {\pounds}1,000 cash bonuses. In a follow-up study, AI's advantage persisted after experts received a coaching tool that let them practice against the AI that beat them, review their performance history, and see what AI would have said at key moments. We found converging evidence that AI's advantage stemmed from rapidly deploying larger quantities of information: after coaching, expert humans could tie an AI constrained to respond at human speeds and with human-length messages. In a final study, we show that AI's advantage extends to consequential real-world behavior: AI was more than 3x more effective than professional canvassers from a UK fundraising firm at raising real-money donations to Save the Children. Together, these results establish that frontier AI systems out-persuade expert humans in text-based conversation, with significant implications for political communication.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | Many societal decisions are settled by contests of persuasion. | background 1.00 | 0.03 | 0.01 | asserted 1.00 |
| s1 | Conversational AI is a powerful new entrant in these contests, but whether it can out-persuade skilled and highly incentivized humans has remained unclear. | gap 0.99 | 0.05 | 0.03 | asserted 0.50 |
| s2 | Here, in a series of four preregistered experiments (n = 18,978 conversations from 6,923 people), we pitted AI systems against a range of human persuaders, including laypeople, winners of a separately preregistered four-round online persuasion tournament, professional canvassers, and world championship debaters. | method 0.84 | 0.95 | 0.03 | asserted 0.80 |
| s3 | We found that AI systems were reliably more persuasive than expert humans, even when expert humans chose their issues, researched in advance, underwent hours of live, structured practice, and were incentivized with {\pounds}1,000 cash bonuses. | result 1.00 | 0.97 | 0.77 | asserted 1.00 |
| s4 | In a follow-up study, AI's advantage persisted after experts received a coaching tool that let them practice against the AI that beat them, review their performance history, and see what AI would have said at key moments. | result 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.05 | asserted 1.00 |
| s5 | We found converging evidence that AI's advantage stemmed from rapidly deploying larger quantities of information: after coaching, expert humans could tie an AI constrained to respond at human speeds and with human-length messages. | interpretation 0.64 | 0.96 | 0.07 | asserted 1.00 |
| s6 | In a final study, we show that AI's advantage extends to consequential real-world behavior: AI was more than 3x more effective than professional canvassers from a UK fundraising firm at raising real-money donations to Save the Children. | result 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.12 | asserted 1.00 |
| s7 | Together, these results establish that frontier AI systems out-persuade expert humans in text-based conversation, with significant implications for political communication. | interpretation 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.96 | asserted 1.00 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v2
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
Many societal decisions are settled by contests of persuasion. Conversational AI is a powerful new entrant in these contests, but whether it can out-persuade skilled and highly incentivized humans has remained unclear. Here, in a series of four preregistered experiments (n = 18,978 conversations from 6,923 people), we pitted AI systems against a range of human persuaders, including laypeople, winners of a separately preregistered four-round online persuasion tournament, professional canvassers, and world championship debaters. We found that AI systems were reliably more persuasive than expert humans, even when expert humans chose their issues, researched in advance, underwent hours of live, structured practice, and were incentivized with {\pounds}1,000 cash bonuses. In a follow-up study, AI's advantage persisted after experts received a coaching tool that let them practice against the AI that beat them, review their performance history, and see what AI would have said at key moments. We found converging evidence that AI's advantage stemmed from rapidly deploying larger quantities of information: after coaching, expert humans could tie an AI constrained to respond at human speeds and with human-length messages. In a final study, we show that AI's advantage extends to consequential real-world behavior: AI was more than 3x more effective than professional canvassers from a UK fundraising firm at raising real-money donations to Save the Children. Together, these results establish that frontier AI systems out-persuade expert humans in text-based conversation, with significant implications for political communication.
Human review
How the literature uses it
1 arXiv paper cite this in 1 sentence
Papers citing it
Cites it as support 1 paper
-
Awareness alone may not be enough to counter AI persuasion, especially in light of recent evidence that large language models can be more persuasive than financially incentivized laypeople [ref] and even expert human persuaders [ref] , particularly when they personalize arguments to the individual [ref] .
Individual-level interventions against sycophantic AI reduce its appeal but not its persuasiveness · Discussion · 0.98
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.