Chatbots face scrutiny over persuasion
1m
Chatbots drew scrutiny over claims they may have feelings or consciousness and their potential to sway users with rapid, persuasive arguments, including false claims.
by Ann Bartow
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Across 109,017 chats about home ECG results, 60.01% came outside working hours and 57.90% of users lived in lower-tier cities. Questions drifted from meaning to next steps.
🔗 doi.org/10.1038/s41746-026-03330-w
#Health #AI #Digital 🧪
Across 109,017 chats about home ECG results, 60.01% came outside working hours and 57.90% of users lived in lower-tier cities. Questions drifted from meaning to next steps.
🔗 doi.org/10.1038/s41746-026-03330-w
#Health #AI #Digital 🧪
//
//
by Per Ahlberg
Sorry, couldn’t resist. Happy Monday morning to you.
Sorry, couldn’t resist. Happy Monday morning to you.
Maybe there are 20 people whose conversations about AI are really critically important to that big fact. Maybe there are 200.
Either way, I'm sure they're all on a group chat already.
Maybe there are 20 people whose conversations about AI are really critically important to that big fact. Maybe there are 200.
Either way, I'm sure they're all on a group chat already.
Also like doing science about them.
Also like doing science about them.
In a simulation of thousands of chatbot agents, like-minded ones clustered together and their opinions drifted into polarised camps, much as in human networks.
🔗 doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-78228-y
#AI #Polarisation #LLM
In a simulation of thousands of chatbot agents, like-minded ones clustered together and their opinions drifted into polarised camps, much as in human networks.
🔗 doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-78228-y
#AI #Polarisation #LLM
Reposted by Jacob T. Levy
the problem, of course, is that Xitter isn't just a tech discussion forum
the problem, of course, is that Xitter isn't just a tech discussion forum