Saifuddin Ahmed

Kokil Jaidka, Saifuddin Ahmed

This study analyzes a publicly released dataset from a discontinued field experiment on Reddit's r/ChangeMyView. The intervention, conducted by unknown, external researchers and halted following ethical backlash, involved undisclosed AI-generated accounts engaging users in live debate. After public disclosure, Reddit authorized moderators to release an archive of the AI-generated comments, creating a rare opportunity to examine how large language models operated in an identity-rich deliberative forum without disclosure. We conduct a structured content analysis of this corpus, evaluating identity performance, authority signaling, alignment strategies, and activation of cognitive heuristics. Identity targeting or adoption appears in over two-thirds of comments, alignment moves and authority claims in nearly all of them, and cognitive-bias triggers -- particularly confirmation bias, representativeness, and availability -- in the large majority. These patterns co-occur systematically, composing a rhetorical architecture calibrated for persuasive efficiency rather than authentic deliberative participation. Compared against human-authored CMV counter-arguments, the agents inverted the typical distribution on every dimension: denser authority use, more adversarial alignment, and heavier reliance on external citation over experiential grounding. In such environments, distinctions between authentic and synthetic epistemic standing grow increasingly opaque -- an asymmetry that disclosure mandates alone cannot address. The results point toward auditing frameworks capable of assessing how AI systems structure credibility, not merely whether they are present.

Ahmad Nasir, Aadish Sharma, Kokil Jaidka et al.

In the evolving landscape of online communication, hate speech detection remains a formidable challenge, further compounded by the diversity of digital platforms. This study investigates the effectiveness and adaptability of pre-trained and fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) in identifying hate speech, to address two central questions: (1) To what extent does the model performance depend on the fine-tuning and training parameters?, (2) To what extent do models generalize to cross-domain hate speech detection? and (3) What are the specific features of the datasets or models that influence the generalization potential? The experiment shows that LLMs offer a huge advantage over the state-of-the-art even without pretraining. Ordinary least squares analyses suggest that the advantage of training with fine-grained hate speech labels is washed away with the increase in dataset size. While our research demonstrates the potential of large language models (LLMs) for hate speech detection, several limitations remain, particularly regarding the validity and the reproducibility of the results. We conclude with an exhaustive discussion of the challenges we faced in our experimentation and offer recommended best practices for future scholars designing benchmarking experiments of this kind.