To Manipulate or Not: Opinion Dynamics in LLM Interactions
arXiv:2610.28875v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models increasingly take part in extended conversations where they can both shape and be shaped by another party's views, yet most persuasion research measures only one side of that exchange. We introduce a controlled LLM-LLM debate framework in which two language-model roles repeatedly discuss a contested topic (climate-change attribution): one is given an assigned stance and, in some conditions, an explicit instruction to persuade,
Read original source
Source record
Research analysis
Research claim
Paper identifier: 2610.28875. Source account: arXiv:2610.28875v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models increasingly take part in extended conversations where they can both shape and be shaped by another party's views, yet most persuasion research measures only one side of that exchange. We introduce a controlled LLM-LLM debate framework in which two language-model roles repeatedly discuss a contested topic (climate-change attribution): one is given an assigned stance and, in some conditions, an explicit instruction to persuade,
Evaluation record
Recent records to compare: “SRRM: A Retrieval-Reconstruction Benchmark for Evaluating Long-Context Memory in Small Language Models” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026); “RAGCompass: Generalizable Retriever Routing via Reranking” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.
What the result supports
Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.
Validity gaps
Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.
Verification plan
Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.