Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Can Language Models Recognize Convincing Arguments?

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 2404.00750 v2 pith:I6G2FRCA submitted 2024-03-31 cs.CL cs.CY

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

The capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have raised concerns about their potential to create and propagate convincing narratives. Here, we study their performance in detecting convincing arguments to gain insights into LLMs' persuasive capabilities without directly engaging in experimentation with humans. We extend a dataset by Durmus and Cardie (2018) with debates, votes, and user traits and propose tasks measuring LLMs' ability to (1) distinguish between strong and weak arguments, (2) predict stances based on beliefs and demographic characteristics, and (3) determine the appeal of an argument to an individual based on their traits. We show that LLMs perform on par with humans in these tasks and that combining predictions from different LLMs yields significant performance gains, surpassing human performance. The data and code released with this paper contribute to the crucial effort of continuously evaluating and monitoring LLMs' capabilities and potential impact. (https://go.epfl.ch/persuasion-llm)

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A New Incentive Model For Content Trust

    cs.GT 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Creators, challengers, and jurors stake money on contested content, with forfeited bonds paying the winners, in a proposed self-sustaining content trust protocol.

Pith tools