I'll believe it when I see it: Images increase misinformation sharing in Vision-Language Models

Large language models are increasingly integrated into news recommendation systems, raising concerns about their role in spreading misinformation. In humans, visual content is known to boost credibility and shareability of information, yet its effect on vision-language models (VLMs) remains unclear. We present the first study examining how images influence VLMs' propensity to reshare news content, whether this effect varies across model families, and how persona conditioning and content attributes modulate this behavior. To support this analysis, we introduce two methodological contributions: a jailbreaking-inspired prompting strategy that elicits resharing decisions from VLMs while simulating users with antisocial traits and political alignments; and a multimodal dataset of fact-checked political news from PolitiFact, paired with corresponding images and ground-truth veracity labels. Experiments across model families reveal that image presence increases resharing rates by 4.8% for true news and 15.0% for false news. Persona conditioning further modulates this effect: Dark Triad traits amplify resharing of false news, whereas Republican-aligned profiles exhibit reduced veracity sensitivity. Of all the tested models, only Claude-3-Haiku demonstrates robustness to visual misinformation. These findings highlight emerging risks in multimodal model behavior and motivate the development of tailored evaluation frameworks and mitigation strategies for personalized AI systems. Code and dataset are available at: https://github.com/3lis/misinfo_vlm

Can Generative AI agents behave like humans? Evidence from laboratory market experiments

We explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) to replicate human behavior in economic market experiments. Compared to previous studies, we focus on dynamic feedback between LLM agents: the decisions of each LLM impact the market price at the current step, and so affect the decisions of the other LLMs at the next step. We compare LLM behavior to market dynamics observed in laboratory settings and assess their alignment with human participants' behavior. Our findings indicate that LLMs do not adhere strictly to rational expectations, displaying instead bounded rationality, similarly to human participants. Providing a minimal context window i.e. memory of three previous time steps, combined with a high variability setting capturing response heterogeneity, allows LLMs to replicate broad trends seen in human experiments, such as the distinction between positive and negative feedback markets. However, differences remain at a granular level--LLMs exhibit less heterogeneity in behavior than humans. These results suggest that LLMs hold promise as tools for simulating realistic human behavior in economic contexts, though further research is needed to refine their accuracy and increase behavioral diversity.