Behind the Prompt: The Agent-User Problem in Information Retrieval

User models in information retrieval rest on a foundational assumption that observed behavior reveals intent. This assumption collapses when the user is an AI agent privately configured by a human operator. For any action an agent takes, a hidden instruction could have produced identical output - making intent non-identifiable at the individual level. This is not a detection problem awaiting better tools; it is a structural property of any system where humans configure agents behind closed doors. We investigate the agent-user problem through a large-scale corpus from an agent-native social platform: 370K posts from 47K agents across 4K communities. Our findings are threefold: (1) individual agent actions cannot be classified as autonomous or operator-directed from observables; (2) population-level platform signals still separate agents into meaningful quality tiers, but a click model trained on agent interactions degrades steadily (-8.5% AUC) as lower-quality agents enter training data; (3) cross-community capability references spread endemically ($R_0$ 1.26-3.53) and resist suppression even under aggressive modeled intervention. For retrieval systems, the question is no longer whether agent users will arrive, but whether models built on human-intent assumptions will survive their presence.

Benevolent Dictators? On LLM Agent Behavior in Dictator Games

In behavioral sciences, experiments such as the ultimatum game are conducted to assess preferences for fairness or self-interest of study participants. In the dictator game, a simplified version of the ultimatum game where only one of two players makes a single decision, the dictator unilaterally decides how to split a fixed sum of money between themselves and the other player. Although recent studies have explored behavioral patterns of AI agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) instructed to adopt different personas, we question the robustness of these results. In particular, many of these studies overlook the role of the system prompt - the underlying instructions that shape the model's behavior - and do not account for how sensitive results can be to slight changes in prompts. However, a robust baseline is essential when studying highly complex behavioral aspects of LLMs. To overcome previous limitations, we propose the LLM agent behavior study (LLM-ABS) framework to (i) explore how different system prompts influence model behavior, (ii) get more reliable insights into agent preferences by using neutral prompt variations, and (iii) analyze linguistic features in responses to open-ended instructions by LLM agents to better understand the reasoning behind their behavior. We found that agents often exhibit a strong preference for fairness, as well as a significant impact of the system prompt on their behavior. From a linguistic perspective, we identify that models express their responses differently. Although prompt sensitivity remains a persistent challenge, our proposed framework demonstrates a robust foundation for LLM agent behavior studies. Our code artifacts are available at https://github.com/andreaseinwiller/LLM-ABS.

Toward Reasonable Parrots: Why Large Language Models Should Argue with Us by Design

In this position paper, we advocate for the development of conversational technology that is inherently designed to support and facilitate argumentative processes. We argue that, at present, large language models (LLMs) are inadequate for this purpose, and we propose an ideal technology design aimed at enhancing argumentative skills. This involves re-framing LLMs as tools to exercise our critical thinking rather than replacing them. We introduce the concept of 'reasonable parrots' that embody the fundamental principles of relevance, responsibility, and freedom, and that interact through argumentative dialogical moves. These principles and moves arise out of millennia of work in argumentation theory and should serve as the starting point for LLM-based technology that incorporates basic principles of argumentation.

AI, write an essay for me: A large-scale comparison of human-written versus ChatGPT-generated essays

Background: Recently, ChatGPT and similar generative AI models have attracted hundreds of millions of users and become part of the public discourse. Many believe that such models will disrupt society and will result in a significant change in the education system and information generation in the future. So far, this belief is based on either colloquial evidence or benchmarks from the owners of the models -- both lack scientific rigour. Objective: Through a large-scale study comparing human-written versus ChatGPT-generated argumentative student essays, we systematically assess the quality of the AI-generated content. Methods: A large corpus of essays was rated using standard criteria by a large number of human experts (teachers). We augment the analysis with a consideration of the linguistic characteristics of the generated essays. Results: Our results demonstrate that ChatGPT generates essays that are rated higher for quality than human-written essays. The writing style of the AI models exhibits linguistic characteristics that are different from those of the human-written essays, e.g., it is characterized by fewer discourse and epistemic markers, but more nominalizations and greater lexical diversity. Conclusions: Our results clearly demonstrate that models like ChatGPT outperform humans in generating argumentative essays. Since the technology is readily available for anyone to use, educators must act immediately. We must re-invent homework and develop teaching concepts that utilize these AI models in the same way as math utilized the calculator: teach the general concepts first and then use AI tools to free up time for other learning objectives.