Commenters question the study's real-world validity
3 Sep 18 10:25 AM · 9d ago · 2 comments · 1 source · development 3 of 6
Some HN users note the underlying research compared chatbots to paid online-survey participants (via Prolific), questioning whether the finding that chatbots are more persuasive than humans would replicate outside that artificial setup.
Luciano Floridi Philosopher cited in the science.org articleTerra Blevins Northeastern Khoury College professorHeather Littlefield Northeastern linguistics professorSofia Teixeira Professor, Northeastern Network Science Institute London
The whole story articlespostscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 2 voices · verbatim
-
This was based by comparing people on Prolific (earn a few quarters for a task, akin to Amazon Mechanical Turk) to LLMs. Suffice to say the human group isn't going to be the most motivated, capable, or interested group. The social sciences are publishing tons of studies based on these cheap online survey services, and I suspect their replicability…
-
In my arguments on the internet, I think most people genuinely know nothing about the things they support and only follow existing tribalism. I think AI is often these people’s first experience with the evidence that it can easily share.
All 6 developments of AI chatbots now out-persuade humans in debates, research… →
Hacker NewsNewswires