Nicolo' Fontana

Elisa Composta, Nicolo' Fontana, Francesco Corso et al.

Online social networks offer a valuable lens to analyze both individual and collective phenomena. Researchers often use simulators to explore controlled scenarios, and the integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) makes these simulations more realistic by enabling agents to understand and generate natural language content. In this work, we investigate the behavior of LLM-based agents in a simulated microblogging social network. We initialize agents with realistic profiles calibrated on real-world online conversations from the 2022 Italian political election and extend an existing simulator by introducing mechanisms for opinion modeling. We examine how LLM agents simulate online conversations, interact with others, and evolve their opinions under different scenarios. Our results show that LLM agents generate coherent content, form connections, and build a realistic social network structure. However, their generated content displays less heterogeneity in tone and toxicity compared to real data. We also find that LLM-based opinion dynamics evolve over time in ways similar to traditional mathematical models. Varying parameter configurations produces no significant changes, indicating that simulations require more careful cognitive modeling at initialization to replicate human behavior more faithfully. Overall, we demonstrate the potential of LLMs for simulating user behavior in social environments, while also identifying key challenges in capturing heterogeneity and complex dynamics.

Nicoló Fontana, Francesco Pierri, Luca Maria Aiello

The behavior of Large Language Models (LLMs) as artificial social agents is largely unexplored, and we still lack extensive evidence of how these agents react to simple social stimuli. Testing the behavior of AI agents in classic Game Theory experiments provides a promising theoretical framework for evaluating the norms and values of these agents in archetypal social situations. In this work, we investigate the cooperative behavior of three LLMs (Llama2, Llama3, and GPT3.5) when playing the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma against random adversaries displaying various levels of hostility. We introduce a systematic methodology to evaluate an LLM's comprehension of the game rules and its capability to parse historical gameplay logs for decision-making. We conducted simulations of games lasting for 100 rounds and analyzed the LLMs' decisions in terms of dimensions defined in the behavioral economics literature. We find that all models tend not to initiate defection but act cautiously, favoring cooperation over defection only when the opponent's defection rate is low. Overall, LLMs behave at least as cooperatively as the typical human player, although our results indicate some substantial differences among models. In particular, Llama2 and GPT3.5 are more cooperative than humans, and especially forgiving and non-retaliatory for opponent defection rates below 30%. More similar to humans, Llama3 exhibits consistently uncooperative and exploitative behavior unless the opponent always cooperates. Our systematic approach to the study of LLMs in game theoretical scenarios is a step towards using these simulations to inform practices of LLM auditing and alignment.