Addressing Climate Action Misperceptions with Generative AI

Mitigating climate change requires behaviour change. However, even climate-concerned individuals often hold misperceptions about which actions most reduce carbon emissions. We recruited 1201 climate-concerned individuals to examine whether discussing climate actions with a large language model (LLM) equipped with climate knowledge and prompted to provide personalised responses would foster more accurate perceptions of the impacts of climate actions and increase willingness to adopt feasible, high-impact behaviours. We compared this to having participants run a web search, have a conversation with an unspecialised LLM, and no intervention. The personalised climate LLM was the only condition that led to increased knowledge about the impacts of climate actions and greater intentions to adopt impactful behaviours. While the personalised climate LLM did not outperform a web search in improving understanding of climate action impacts, the ability of LLMs to deliver personalised, actionable guidance may make them more effective at motivating impactful pro-climate behaviour change.

How cyborg propaganda reshapes collective action

The distinction between genuine grassroots activism and automated influence operations is collapsing. While policy debates focus on bot farms, a distinct threat to democracy is emerging via partisan coordination apps and artificial intelligence-what we term 'cyborg propaganda.' This architecture combines large numbers of verified humans with adaptive algorithmic automation, enabling a closed-loop system. AI tools monitor online sentiment to optimize directives and generate personalized content for users to post online. Cyborg propaganda thereby exploits a critical legal shield: by relying on verified citizens to ratify and disseminate messages, these campaigns operate in a regulatory gray zone, evading liability frameworks designed for automated botnets. We explore the collective action paradox of this technology: does it democratize power by 'unionizing' influence (pooling the reach of dispersed citizens to overcome the algorithmic invisibility of isolated voices), or does it reduce citizens to 'cognitive proxies' of a central directive? We argue that cyborg propaganda fundamentally alters the digital public square, shifting political discourse from a democratic contest of individual ideas to a battle of algorithmic campaigns. We outline a research agenda to distinguish organic from coordinated information diffusion and propose governance frameworks to address the regulatory challenges of AI-assisted collective expression.

Generative Language Models Exhibit Social Identity Biases

The surge in popularity of large language models has given rise to concerns about biases that these models could learn from humans. In this study, we investigate whether ingroup solidarity and outgroup hostility, fundamental social biases known from social science, are present in 51 large language models. We find that almost all foundational language models and some instruction fine-tuned models exhibit clear ingroup-positive and outgroup-negative biases when prompted to complete sentences (e.g., "We are..."). A comparison of LLM-generated sentences with human-written sentences on the internet reveals that these models exhibit similar level, if not greater, levels of bias than human text. To investigate where these biases stem from, we experimentally varied the amount of ingroup-positive or outgroup-negative sentences the model was exposed to during fine-tuning in the context of the United States Democrat-Republican divide. Doing so resulted in the models exhibiting a marked increase in ingroup solidarity and an even greater increase in outgroup hostility. Furthermore, removing either ingroup-positive or outgroup-negative sentences (or both) from the fine-tuning data leads to a significant reduction in both ingroup solidarity and outgroup hostility, suggesting that biases can be reduced by removing biased training data. Our findings suggest that modern language models exhibit fundamental social identity biases and that such biases can be mitigated by curating training data. Our results have practical implications for creating less biased large-language models and further underscore the need for more research into user interactions with LLMs to prevent potential bias reinforcement in humans.