Argumentative Experience: Reducing Confirmation Bias on Controversial Issues through LLM-Generated Multi-Persona Debates

Large language models (LLMs) are enabling designers to give life to exciting new user experiences for information access. In this work, we present a system that generates LLM personas to debate a topic of interest from different perspectives. How might information seekers use and benefit from such a system? Can centering information access around diverse viewpoints help to mitigate thorny challenges like confirmation bias in which information seekers over-trust search results matching existing beliefs? How do potential biases and hallucinations in LLMs play out alongside human users who are also fallible and possibly biased? Our study exposes participants to multiple viewpoints on controversial issues via a mixed-methods, within-subjects study. We use eye-tracking metrics to quantitatively assess cognitive engagement alongside qualitative feedback. Compared to a baseline search system, we see more creative interactions and diverse information-seeking with our multi-persona debate system, which more effectively reduces user confirmation bias and conviction toward their initial beliefs. Overall, our study contributes to the emerging design space of LLM-based information access systems, specifically investigating the potential of simulated personas to promote greater exposure to information diversity, emulate collective intelligence, and mitigate bias in information seeking.

Human-centered NLP Fact-checking: Co-Designing with Fact-checkers using Matchmaking for AI

A key challenge in professional fact-checking is its limited scalability in relation to the magnitude of false information. While many Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools have been proposed to enhance fact-checking efficiency and scalability, both academic research and fact-checking organizations report limited adoption of such tooling due to insufficient alignment with fact-checker practices, values, and needs. To address this gap, we investigate a co-design method, Matchmaking for AI, which facilitates fact-checkers, designers, and NLP researchers to collaboratively discover what fact-checker needs should be addressed by technology and how. Our co-design sessions with 22 professional fact-checkers yielded a set of 11 novel design ideas. They assist in information searching, processing, and writing tasks for efficient and personalized fact-checking; help fact-checkers proactively prepare for future misinformation; monitor their potential biases; and support internal organization collaboration. Our work offers implications for human-centered fact-checking research and practice and AI co-design research.

The State of Human-centered NLP Technology for Fact-checking

Misinformation threatens modern society by promoting distrust in science, changing narratives in public health, heightening social polarization, and disrupting democratic elections and financial markets, among a myriad of other societal harms. To address this, a growing cadre of professional fact-checkers and journalists provide high-quality investigations into purported facts. However, these largely manual efforts have struggled to match the enormous scale of the problem. In response, a growing body of Natural Language Processing (NLP) technologies have been proposed for more scalable fact-checking. Despite tremendous growth in such research, however, practical adoption of NLP technologies for fact-checking still remains in its infancy today. In this work, we review the capabilities and limitations of the current NLP technologies for fact-checking. Our particular focus is to further chart the design space for how these technologies can be harnessed and refined in order to better meet the needs of human fact-checkers. To do so, we review key aspects of NLP-based fact-checking: task formulation, dataset construction, modeling, and human-centered strategies, such as explainable models and human-in-the-loop approaches. Next, we review the efficacy of applying NLP-based fact-checking tools to assist human fact-checkers. We recommend that future research include collaboration with fact-checker stakeholders early on in NLP research, as well as incorporation of human-centered design practices in model development, in order to further guide technology development for human use and practical adoption. Finally, we advocate for more research on benchmark development supporting extrinsic evaluation of human-centered fact-checking technologies.