Henry Davidson

Lennart Luettgau, Hannah Rose Kirk, Kobi Hackenburg et al.

Conversational AI systems are increasingly being used in place of traditional search engines to help users complete information-seeking tasks. This has raised concerns in the political domain, where biased or hallucinated outputs could misinform voters or distort public opinion. However, in spite of these concerns, the extent to which conversational AI is used for political information-seeking, as well the potential impact of this use on users' political knowledge, remains uncertain. Here, we address these questions: First, in a representative national survey of the UK public (N = 2,499), we find that in the week before the 2024 election as many as 32% of chatbot users - and 13% of eligible UK voters - have used conversational AI to seek political information relevant to their electoral choice. Second, in a series of randomised controlled trials (N = 2,858 total) we find that across issues, models, and prompting strategies, task-directed conversations with AI to research specific political topics increase political knowledge (increase belief in true information and decrease belief in misinformation) to the same extent as self-directed Google search. Taken together, our results suggest that people in the UK are increasingly turning to conversational AI for information about politics. These findings substantially extend prior work by demonstrating that conversational AI's effects on political knowledge generalise across multiple topics, political perspectives, and model families, suggesting that the shift toward AI-assisted political information-seeking may not lead to increased public belief in political misinformation.

Lennart Luettgau, Vanessa Cheung, Magda Dubois et al.

People increasingly seek personal advice from large language models (LLMs), yet whether humans follow their advice, and its consequences for their well-being, remains unknown. In a longitudinal randomised controlled trial with a representative UK sample (N = 6,474), we found that up to 79% of participants who had a 20-minute discussion with one of three AI chatbots (GPT-4o, LLama-3.3-70B, Gemini 3 Pro) about health, careers or relationships subsequently reported following its advice. Advice-following remained above 60% even for high-stakes recommendations, suggesting that users only weakly calibrate their reliance on AI advice to potential consequences. Based on autograder evaluations of chat transcripts, LLM advice rarely violated safety best practice. However, when queried 2-3 weeks later, participants receiving personal advice from AI showed no sustained well-being benefits compared to a control group who discussed hobbies and interests with the same chatbots. These findings reveal that consumer LLMs exert substantial influence over real-world personal decisions without delivering measurable psychological benefits.

Hannah Rose Kirk, Liu Leqi, Fanzhi Zeng et al.

Personalisation is a standard feature of conversational AI systems used by millions; yet, the efficacy of personalisation methods is often evaluated in academic research using simulated users rather than real people. This raises questions about how users and their simulated counterparts differ in interaction patterns and judgements, as well as whether personalisation is best achieved through context-based prompting or weight-based fine-tuning. Here, in a large-scale within-subject experiment, we re-recruit 530 participants from 52 countries two years after they gave their preferences in the PRISM dataset (Kirk et al., 2024) to evaluate personalised and non-personalised language models in blinded multi-turn conversations. We find preference fine-tuning (P-DPO, Li et al., 2024) significantly outperforms both a generic model and personalised prompting but adapting to individual preference data yields marginal gains over training on pooled preferences from a diverse population. Beyond length biases, fine-tuning amplifies sycophancy and relationship-seeking behaviours that people reward in short-term evaluations but which may introduce deleterious long-term consequences. Replicating this within-subject experiment with simulated users recovers aggregate model hierarchies but simulators perform far below human self-consistency baselines for individual judgements, discuss different topics, exhibit amplified position biases, and produce feedback dynamics that diverge from humans.

Katarina Slama, Alexandra Souly, Dishank Bansal et al.

Preference-driven behavior in LLMs may be a necessary precondition for AI misalignment such as sandbagging: models cannot strategically pursue misaligned goals unless their behavior is influenced by their preferences. Yet prior work has typically prompted models explicitly to act in specific ways, leaving unclear whether observed behaviors reflect instruction-following capabilities vs underlying model preferences. Here we test whether this precondition for misalignment is present. Using entity preferences as a behavioral probe, we measure whether stated preferences predict downstream behavior in five frontier LLMs across three domains: donation advice, refusal behavior, and task performance. Conceptually replicating prior work, we first confirm that all five models show highly consistent preferences across two independent measurement methods. We then test behavioral consequences in a simulated user environment. We find that all five models give preference-aligned donation advice. All five models also show preference-correlated refusal patterns when asked to recommend donations, refusing more often for less-preferred entities. All preference-related behaviors that we observe here emerge without instructions to act on preferences. Results for task performance are mixed: on a question-answering benchmark (BoolQ), two models show small but significant accuracy differences favoring preferred entities; one model shows the opposite pattern; and two models show no significant relationship. On complex agentic tasks, we find no evidence of preference-driven performance differences. While LLMs have consistent preferences that reliably predict advice-giving behavior, these preferences do not consistently translate into downstream task performance.