Accountable Human-AI Deliberation with LLMs: Scaling Collective Intelligence through Symbiotic Scaffolding
For researchers and practitioners in collective intelligence and democratic deliberation, this work addresses the risk of pluralism collapse and legitimacy loss in LLM-mediated group decision-making.
The paper proposes a symbiotic human-AI deliberation framework that uses LLMs to scale collective intelligence while preserving agency and legitimacy, introducing metrics for diversity and erasure, provenance pipelines, and contestability workflows. The result is a testable blueprint for accountable deliberation technology.
Large language models (LLMs) can support democratic deliberation at scales previously constrained by turn-taking and facilitation bandwidth. Recent work shows that LLM-generated group statements are often preferred over human-mediated outputs, while theoretical analyses argue that LLMs relax the simultaneity constraints limiting collective intelligence. Yet pure LLM mediation risks collapsing pluralism, over-optimizing for agreement, and undermining legitimacy when participants cannot contest how they are represented. We propose a symbiotic human-AI framework organized into three layers: observation and diversity amplification, facilitation with clause-level provenance, and human primacy for ratification. Our contributions include graded coverage, diversity, and erasure metrics with salience-aware weighting; a provenance pipeline combining cross-encoder similarity with causal knockout diagnostics; preference-conditioned trade-off control; equity-aware contestability workflows; adversarial robustness tests; and an evaluation protocol with ablation designs informed by evidence of LLM-as-judge limitations. The result is a testable blueprint for deliberation technology that scales collective intelligence while preserving agency and legitimacy.