Martin Saveski

Katelyn Xiaoying Mei, Robert Wolfe, Nicholas Weber et al. · uw

xAI's large language model, Grok, is called by millions of people each week on the social media platform X. Prior work characterizing how large language models are used has focused on private, one-on-one interactions. Grok's deployment on X represents a major departure from this setting, with interactions occurring in a public social space. In this paper, we systematically sample three months of interaction data to investigate how, when, and to what effect Grok is used on X. At the platform level, we find that Grok responds to 62% of requests, that the majority (51%) are in English, and that engagement is low, with half of Grok's responses receiving 20 or fewer views after 48 hours. We also inductively build a taxonomy of 10 roles that LLMs play in mediating social interactions and use these roles to analyze 41,735 interactions with Grok on X. We find that Grok most often serves as an information provider but, in contrast to LLM use in private one-on-one settings, also takes on roles related to dispute management, such as truth arbiter, advocate, and adversary. Finally, we characterize the population of X users who prompted Grok and find that their self-expressed interests are closely related to the roles the model assumes in the corresponding interactions. Our findings provide an initial quantitative description of human-AI interactions on X, and a broader understanding of the diverse roles that large language models might play in our online social spaces.

Jonathan Stray, Ian Baker, George Beknazar-Yuzbashev et al. · uw

We report the first direct comparisons of multiple alternative social media algorithms on multiple platforms on outcomes of societal interest. We used a browser extension to modify which posts were shown to desktop social media users, randomly assigning 9,386 users to a control group or one of five alternative ranking algorithms which simultaneously altered content across three platforms for six months during the US 2024 presidential election. This reduced our preregistered index of affective polarization by an average of 0.03 standard deviations (p < 0.05), including a 1.5 degree decrease in differences between the 100 point inparty and outparty feeling thermometers. We saw reductions in active use time for Facebook (-0.37 min/day) and Reddit (-0.2 min/day), but an increase of 0.32 min/day (p < 0.01) for X/Twitter. We saw an increase in reports of negative social media experiences but found no effects on well-being, news knowledge, outgroup empathy, perceptions of and support for partisan violence. This implies that bridging content can improve some societal outcomes without necessarily conflicting with the engagement-driven business model of social media.

Samantha D'Alonzo, Rachel Chen, Weidong Zhang et al.

Intellectual humility (IH)-a recognition of one's own intellectual limitations-can reduce polarization and foster more understanding across lines of difference. Yet little work explores how IH can be systematically defined, measured, evaluated, and enhanced in spaces that often lack it the most: online political discussions. In this paper, we seek to bridge these gaps by exploring two questions: 1) how might preexisting levels of IH influence future expressions of IH during online political discourse? and 2) can online interventions enhance IH across different political topics and conversational environments? To pursue these questions, we define a codebook characterizing different dimensions of IH and intellectual arrogance (IA) and have researchers use it to annotate several hundred Reddit posts, which we then use to develop and validate a classifier to support IH analysis at scale. These tools subsequently enable two key contributions: i) an observational data analysis of how IH varies across different political discussions on Reddit, which reveals that more/less IH environments tend to contain future posts of a similar nature, and ii) a randomized control trial evaluating strategies for nudging discussion participants to demonstrate more IH in their posts, which reveals the possibility of enhancing IH in online discussions across a range of contentious topics. Our findings highlight the possibility of measuring and increasing IH online without necessarily reducing engagement.

Isaac Slaughter, Axel Peytavin, Johan Ugander et al.

Social networks scaffold the diffusion of information on social media. Much attention has been given to the spread of true vs. false content on online social platforms, including the structural differences between their diffusion patterns. However, much less is known about how platform interventions on false content alter the engagement with and diffusion of such content. In this work, we estimate the causal effects of Community Notes, a novel fact-checking feature adopted by X (formerly Twitter) to solicit and vet crowd-sourced fact-checking notes for false content. We gather detailed time series data for 40,078 posts for which notes have been proposed and use synthetic control methods to estimate a range of counterfactual outcomes. We find that attaching fact-checking notes significantly reduces the engagement with and diffusion of false content. We estimate that, on average, the notes resulted in reductions of 46.1% in reposts, 44.1% in likes, 21.9% in replies, and 13.5% in views after being attached. Over the posts' entire lifespans, these reductions amount to 11.6% fewer reposts, 13.3% fewer likes, 6.9% fewer replies, and 5.5% fewer views on average. In reducing reposts, we observe that diffusion cascades for fact-checked content are less deep and less "viral," but not less broad, than synthetic control estimates for non-fact-checked content with similar reach. This structural difference contrasts notably with differences between false vs.\ true content diffusion itself, where false information diffuses farther, but with structural patterns that are otherwise indistinguishable from those of true information, conditional on reach.

Tiziano Piccardi, Martin Saveski, Chenyan Jia et al.

There is widespread concern about the negative impacts of social media feed ranking algorithms on political polarization. Leveraging advancements in large language models (LLMs), we develop an approach to re-rank feeds in real-time to test the effects of content that is likely to polarize: expressions of antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity (AAPA). In a preregistered 10-day field experiment on X/Twitter with 1,256 consented participants, we increase or decrease participants' exposure to AAPA in their algorithmically curated feeds. We observe more positive outparty feelings when AAPA exposure is decreased and more negative outparty feelings when AAPA exposure is increased. Exposure to AAPA content also results in an immediate increase in negative emotions, such as sadness and anger. The interventions do not significantly impact traditional engagement metrics such as re-post and favorite rates. These findings highlight a potential pathway for developing feed algorithms that mitigate affective polarization by addressing content that undermines the shared values required for a healthy democracy.