Large Language Models in Politics and Democracy: A Comprehensive Survey

Goshi Aoki

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Large Language Models in Politics and Democracy: A Comprehensive Survey

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A survey of recent research claims that large language models already work across lawmaking, communication, election simulation, diplomacy, war gaming, and legal practice—and that their gains come paired with bias, opacity, and escalation…

desk verdict A competent but citation-sloppy survey: the broad synthesis is fine, but the 'comprehensive' claim rests on an unaudited reference set and several verifiable misattributions. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04498 v2 pith:ZCRFOFQS submitted 2024-12-01 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CY

Goshi Aoki This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CY

keywords largelanguagemodelspoliticsdemocracygenerativeAIpoliticalcommunicationagent-basedsimulationbiasgovernance

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a survey of how large language models are being applied across the full arc of political life, from drafting and classifying legislation to simulating elections, mediating public deliberation, supporting diplomacy, modeling economies and epidemics, and assisting legal work. It argues that these uses deliver real efficiency, inclusivity, and analytic gains, and that they come with a consistent set of harms: bias toward Western and English-speaking perspectives, opaque outputs, susceptibility to hallucination and deception, and a tendency toward escalation in security settings. The stated upshot is that LLMs should not be adopted wholesale or banned outright, but governed.

What carries the argument

The organizing device is a six-domain taxonomy of political application: legislative and policymaking processes, political communication and public opinion, political analysis and collective decision-making, diplomacy and national security, economic and social modeling, and legal applications. Within each domain the paper reads the evidence through a promise-and-challenge lens, pairing every capability demonstration with a risk demonstration, and it uses that pairing to motivate future work on bias mitigation, transparency, and accountability.

What would settle it

A systematic review that applies explicit search and inclusion criteria to the same six application areas and tallies how many qualifying studies find LLM failures rather than successes would directly test the survey's balance-of-promises-and-risks conclusion; if the omitted failures dominate, the claim that LLMs broadly offer opportunities in politics would have to be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the same LLM capabilities that make political applications attractive are the ones that make them risky, so capability and hazard should be assessed together rather than in sequence. The paper assembles evidence that modern LLMs can classify U.S. congressional bills with up to 83% accuracy, annotate political texts across languages, simulate voter behavior better than traditional agent-based models, mediate group deliberation on divisive issues, pass the bar exam, and model labor markets and epidemics. It pairs each capability with documented risks: representation bias toward English-speaking bipartisan democracies, alignment with WEIRD populations, high hallucination rates in legal contexts, escalation behavior in wargames, and the capacity to persuade humans and amplify echo chambers. The conclusion is a call for governance rather than prohibition.

Load-bearing premise

The survey's conclusions stand on the assumption that the 62 papers it cites are representative of LLM use in politics, because no search strategy or inclusion criteria is reported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Political institutions can use LLMs for routine legislative drafting, policy-document classification, and text annotation, freeing human staff for more strategic decisions.
LLM-based mediators can help polarized groups find common ground, but only if deployed with bias monitoring and design safeguards.
Election and public-opinion simulations can lower the cost of polling, yet their documented Western bias means they cannot replace representative samples.
National-security and diplomatic uses are plausible but require safeguards, because simulations show LLMs can escalate conflicts and occasionally choose violent or nuclear actions.
Legal AI tools can pass bar-level tests and support legal research, but hallucination rates require human oversight before they are used unsupervised.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If LLM persuasion works mainly through well-written generic messages rather than personalization, then content-neutral regulation of microtargeted political ads may be aimed at the wrong channel; the paper reports the no-microtargeting-advantage finding but does not draw this regulatory consequence.
The representation-bias findings together imply that LLM-based public-opinion simulations should be treated as thought experiments about WEIRD samples rather than as evidence about a real electorate, a methodological warning the paper documents but does not make explicit.
The paired evidence suggests a testable governance rule: require a pre-deployment bias and escalation audit for any LLM used in public deliberation or national security, an extension that follows from the paper's examples but is not proposed in it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Punchline: this is a survey with no new results, and its conclusions are unremarkable—they match the literature. The real issue is that several references are misattributed, which undercuts the survey's only asset (trust in its synthesis).

What it does well: it offers a current, clearly organized map of six application areas, from legislative drafting to national security, and it cites mostly peer-reviewed work from 2023-2024. The diplomacy/security section is a nice inclusion. For someone new to the area, it's a legitimate orientation document.

Soft spots, in order: The citation errors are concrete and checkable. 'Bai et al. [54]' is actually Voelkel and Willer et al.; 'Palmer et al. [49]' is Spirling; and reference [2] is an anonymous ICLR submission, used as evidence for a specific 'linear geometry' finding. Each error attaches an empirical claim to a source that did not make it. That's a correctness problem for the paper's claim to be a reliable synthesis. Second, there is no search strategy, inclusion criteria, or coding protocol, so the word 'Comprehensive' in the title is a promise the paper cannot back. The stress-test note is right: the selection of 62 references is the load-bearing foundation, and without a methodology or an audit, the reader cannot know if omissions would flip the conclusions. Third, the LLM basics section is thin and somewhat dated, but that's a minor issue for a survey aimed at political scientists.

The paper is honest in its own terms—it doesn't hide the limitations, and it doesn't overclaim beyond the cited literature except for the title. The central argument, such as it is, holds up: LLMs do offer real opportunities and risks in these domains, and the papers cited broadly support that. The errors are fixable, but they need to be fixed in a full revision, not just in a copy-edit.

Who is this for? Newcomers and policy staff who need a quick landscape. I wouldn't cite it in my own work because I'd go to the primary sources, but as a desk, I'd rather see it corrected and published than desk-rejected, because the topic is timely and the current version, once pruned of misattributions, is a serviceable overview. Recommendation: send to peer review with a request for a full reference audit and a transparent methods note or a title change.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a narrative survey of recent and potential applications of large language models in politics and democracy. It is organized into six application domains: legislative and policymaking processes, political communication and public opinion, political analysis and collective decision-making, diplomacy and national security, economic and social modeling, and legal applications. Drawing on 62 references, the paper argues that LLMs can enhance efficiency, inclusivity, and decision-making in political processes while also introducing risks related to bias, transparency, and accountability, and it concludes with a call for responsible development and governance frameworks. The paper contains no new experiments, datasets, or formal derivations.

Significance. If its reference base is accurate and representative, the survey provides a useful map of a fast-moving area and a reasonable synthesis of the main promises and risks. The breadth of coverage across legislative, diplomatic, security, economic, and legal domains is a strength, and the paper correctly identifies bias, transparency, accountability, and human oversight as central challenges. However, the survey's value depends entirely on the trustworthiness and completeness of its 62 references, and the manuscript currently provides no reproducible method for its selection and contains verifiable citation-attribution errors. Because the central claim is the 'comprehensive' synthesis itself, these issues directly affect the paper's validity rather than being cosmetic.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2 and reference [54]] The text attributes the AI-persuasion experiment to 'Bai et al.' and later to 'Bai and Willer,' but reference [54] is Voelkel and Willer et al., 'Artificial intelligence can persuade humans on political issues.' The specific empirical claims in these sentences (4,836 participants; 2–4 point persuasion on a 101-point scale) thus point to the wrong author string, preventing readers from locating the study. Similarly, Section 3.3 attributes to 'Palmer et al.' the finding in reference [49], which is by Arthur Spirling. These are load-bearing attribution errors in a survey whose purpose is to guide readers to the literature.
[Title and Section 5] The manuscript nowhere states a search strategy, inclusion or exclusion criteria, database coverage, or coding protocol, despite calling itself a 'Comprehensive Survey' in the title and claiming in Section 5 to provide 'a comprehensive overview.' Without this information, the selection of 62 references cannot be checked for representativeness, and the general conclusions in Sections 1 and 5—about what LLMs can and cannot do in politics—rest on an unverifiable sample. The authors should add a methods section describing how sources were identified and selected, and should qualify the 'comprehensive' claim accordingly.
[Section 3.2, reference [2]] The 'linear geometry' claim is attributed to 'Researchers [2],' but reference [2] is an anonymous submission 'under review' for ICLR 2024. Using an anonymous, non-peer-reviewed manuscript as the sole support for a specific finding is not an acceptable citation practice in a survey, and the claim about monitoring and controlling bias is therefore not reliably sourced. The authors should replace this with a published version or remove the claim.

minor comments (5)

[Title] The title contains a typographical error: 'Comprehe nsive' should read 'Comprehensive.'
[Section 2] The sentence 'An one of the open source LLM ranging from 7B to 65B parameters' is ungrammatical; it should read 'One of the open-source LLMs ranging from 7B to 65B parameters.'
[Reference [54]] Reference [54] is missing publication details, such as the year and venue; the entry lists only the title and authors.
[Section 2] The claim that GPT-4 and Gemini 'contain hundreds of billions of parameters' is speculative, because OpenAI has not disclosed GPT-4's parameter count.
[General] The paper would benefit from a limitations subsection acknowledging that many cited studies are preprints or simulation-based and that real-world deployment evidence is still scarce.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey synthesizes external literature and makes no derivation or prediction that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This manuscript is a literature survey, not a derivation chain. It contains no equations, no fitted parameters, no new empirical results, and no author self-citations. The central claims — that LLMs offer opportunities in political processes and pose bias, transparency, and accountability challenges — are presented as summaries of external studies, each attributed to a cited source. None of these claims is defined in terms of another claim made by the paper, and no prediction is generated from a fitted input. The lack of an explicit search strategy or inclusion criteria weakens the force of the word 'comprehensive' in the title, but this is a methodological limitation and a correctness risk, not circularity. Likewise, the reference list contains verifiable attribution problems (e.g., calling Voelkel and Willer 'Bai et al.' at Section 3.2, and labeling Arthur Spirling's work 'Palmer et al.' at Section 3.3) and cites an anonymous under-review submission as evidence for the 'linear geometry' claim. These are citation-integrity concerns that could undermine the support for specific assertions, but they do not make the survey's reasoning circular: the survey is not the source of the evidence it reports, and its conclusions are not presupposed by that evidence. Because the paper is self-contained in the sense of relying on external, independently published literature rather than on its own prior conclusions, the circularity burden is nil. Score 0 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The survey introduces no fitted parameters, no new axioms beyond trust in its reference selection, and no invented entities. The only load-bearing input is the accuracy and representativeness of the cited literature.

assumptions (1)

domain assumption The narrative selection of 62 references is representative enough to support the word 'comprehensive' in the title and the survey's conclusions.
No systematic search strategy, inclusion criteria, or coding protocol is given anywhere in the paper, so the claim of comprehensiveness rests entirely on the author's implicit selection.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large Language Models in Politics and Democracy: A Comprehensive Survey." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCRFOFQS

@misc{pith2026241204498,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large Language Models in Politics and Democracy: A Comprehensive Survey},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCRFOFQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04498}
}

read the original abstract

The advancement of generative AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), has a significant impact on politics and democracy, offering potential across various domains, including policymaking, political communication, analysis, and governance. This paper surveys the recent and potential applications of LLMs in politics, examining both their promises and the associated challenges. This paper examines the ways in which LLMs are being employed in legislative processes, political communication, and political analysis. Moreover, we investigate the potential of LLMs in diplomatic and national security contexts, economic and social modeling, and legal applications. While LLMs offer opportunities to enhance efficiency, inclusivity, and decision-making in political processes, they also present challenges related to bias, transparency, and accountability. The paper underscores the necessity for responsible development, ethical considerations, and governance frameworks to ensure that the integration of LLMs into politics aligns with democratic values and promotes a more just and equitable society.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

AGI, Governments, and Free Societies
cs.CY 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

AGI could force societies toward either authoritarian control or weakened state authority, so institutions need new safeguards to preserve liberty.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[54]

Artiﬁcial intelligen ce can persuade humans on political issues

Jan G V oelkel, Robb Willer, et al. Artiﬁcial intelligen ce can persuade humans on political issues. 3

work page
[49]

Large language models can argue in con - vincing and novel ways about politics: Evidence from ex- periments and human judgement

Arthur Spirling. Large language models can argue in con - vincing and novel ways about politics: Evidence from ex- periments and human judgement. 2023. 4

work page 2023
[2]

Linear representations of political perspe c- tive emerge in large language models

Anonymous. Linear representations of political perspe c- tive emerge in large language models. In Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Represen - tations, 2024. under review. 3

work page 2024
[1]

Defense llama: The llm purpose-built for amer- ican national security

Scale AI. Defense llama: The llm purpose-built for amer- ican national security. https://scale.com/blog/ defense-llama. Accessed: 2024-12-01. 4

work page 2024
[3]

Plurals: A system for guiding llms via simulated social ensembles, 2024

Joshua Ashkinaze, Emily Fry, Narendra Edara, Eric Gilbe rt, and Ceren Budak. Plurals: A system for guiding llms via simulated social ensembles, 2024. 1, 4

work page 2024
[4]

Christopher A. Bail. Can generative ai improve social sc i- ence? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 121(21):e2314021121, 2024. 1

work page 2024
[5]

The role of generative ai in global diplomatic practices: A strategi c framework, 2023

Muneera Bano, Zahid Chaudhri, and Didar Zowghi. The role of generative ai in global diplomatic practices: A strategi c framework, 2023. 4

work page 2023
[6]

On the opportunities and risks of foundation models

Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Alt- man, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258, 2021. 1

arXiv 2021

Show all 62 references

[7]

Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Sub- biah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakan- tan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sand- hini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler...

2020
[8]

Caballero and Phillip R

William N. Caballero and Phillip R. Jenkins. On large lan - guage models in national security applications, 2024. 1, 5

2024
[9]

(a) i am not a lawyer, but...: Engaging le- gal experts towards responsible llm policies for legal advi ce

Inyoung Cheong, King Xia, KJ Kevin Feng, Quan Ze Chen, and Amy X Zhang. (a) i am not a lawyer, but...: Engaging le- gal experts towards responsible llm policies for legal advi ce. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 2454–2469, 2024. 6

2024
[10]

Saullm-54b & saullm-141b: Scaling up domain adap- tation for the legal domain

Pierre Colombo, Telmo Pires, Malik Boudiaf, Rui Filipe Coimbra Pereira de Melo, Gabriel Hautreux, Etienne Mal- aboeuf, Johanne Charpentier, Dominic Culver, and Michael Desa. Saullm-54b & saullm-141b: Scaling up domain adap- tation for the legal domain. In The Thirty-eighth Ann...

2024
[11]

Large legal ﬁctions: Proﬁling legal hallucinations in large language models

Matthew Dahl, V arun Magesh, Mirac Suzgun, and Daniel E Ho. Large legal ﬁctions: Proﬁling legal hallucinations in large language models. Journal of Legal Analysis, 16(1):64– 93, 2024. 6

2024
[12]

Esin Durmus, Karina Nguyen, Thomas I. Liao, Nicholas Schiefer, Amanda Askell, Anton Bakhtin, Carol Chen, Zac Hatﬁeld-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Nicholas Joseph, Liane Lovitt, Sam McCandlish, Orowa Sikder, Alex Tamkin, Janel Thamkul, Jared Kaplan, Jack Clark, and Deep Ganguli. Tow...

2024
[13]

Lawbench: Benchmarking legal knowledge of large language models

Zhiwei Fei, Xiaoyu Shen, Dawei Zhu, Fengzhe Zhou, Zhuo Han, Songyang Zhang, Kai Chen, Zongwen Shen, and Ji- dong Ge. Lawbench: Benchmarking legal knowledge of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16289 , 2023. 6

2023 arXiv
[14]

K. J. Kevin Feng, Inyoung Cheong, Quan Ze Chen, and Amy X. Zhang. Policy prototyping for llms: Pluralistic alignment via interactive and collaborative policymaking , 2024. 2, 6

2024
[15]

Implications of chatgpt and large language models for environmental policymaking

Andrew Gao. Implications of chatgpt and large language models for environmental policymaking. Available at SSRN 4499643, 2023. 1, 2

2023
[16]

Generative agent-based modeling: an introduction and tutorial

Navid Ghaffarzadegan, Aritra Majumdar, Ross Williams , and Niyousha Hosseinichimeh. Generative agent-based modeling: an introduction and tutorial. System Dynamics Review, 40(1), January 2024. 5, 6

2024
[17]

Gudiño, Umberto Grandi, and César Hidalgo

Jairo F. Gudiño, Umberto Grandi, and César Hidalgo. Large language models (llms) as agents for augmented democracy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 382(2285):20240100, 2024. 4

2024
[18]

Legal- bench: A collaboratively built benchmark for measuring le- gal reasoning in large language models

Neel Guha, Julian Nyarko, Daniel Ho, Christopher Ré, Adam Chilton, Alex Chohlas-Wood, Austin Peters, Brandon Waldon, Daniel Rockmore, Diego Zambrano, et al. Legal- bench: A collaboratively built benchmark for measuring le- gal reasoning in large language models. Advances in Ne...

2024
[19]

Multiclass clas- siﬁcation of policy documents with large language models, 2023

Erkan Gunes and Christoffer Koch Florczak. Multiclass clas- siﬁcation of policy documents with large language models, 2023. 1, 2

2023
[20]

Evaluating the per - suasive inﬂuence of political microtargeting with large la n- guage models

Kobi Hackenburg and Helen Margetts. Evaluating the per - suasive inﬂuence of political microtargeting with large la n- guage models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 121(24):e2403116121, 2024. 3

2024
[21]

The case for large language model op- timism in legal research from a law & technology librarian

Sean A Harrington. The case for large language model op- timism in legal research from a law & technology librarian. Available at SSRN, 2023. 6

2023
[22]

Societal, economic, ethical and legal chall enges of the digital revolution: From big data to deep learning, ar - tiﬁcial intelligence, and manipulative technologies, 201 9

D Helbing. Societal, economic, ethical and legal chall enges of the digital revolution: From big data to deep learning, ar - tiﬁcial intelligence, and manipulative technologies, 201 9. 1
[23]

Will democracy sur- vive big data and artiﬁcial intelligence? Towards digital en- lightenment: Essays on the dark and light sides of the digita l revolution, pages 73–98, 2019

Dirk Helbing, Bruno S Frey, Gerd Gigerenzer, Ernst Hafe n, Michael Hagner, Yvonne Hofstetter, Jeroen V an Den Hoven, Roberto V Zicari, and Andrej Zwitter. Will democracy sur- vive big data and artiﬁcial intelligence? Towards digital en- lightenment: Essays on the dark and ligh...

2019
[24]

Large language models can impersonat e politicians and other public ﬁgures, 2024

Steffen Herbold, Alexander Trautsch, Zlata Kikteva, a nd An- nette Hautli-Janisz. Large language models can impersonat e politicians and other public ﬁgures, 2024. 4

2024
[25]

Large language models as a substitute for human ex- perts in annotating political text

Michael Heseltine and Bernhard Clemm von Hohenberg. Large language models as a substitute for human ex- perts in annotating political text. Research & Politics , 11(1):20531680241236239, 2024. 1, 3

2024
[26]

John J. Horton. Large language models as simulated eco- nomic agents: What can we learn from homo silicus?, 2023. 5

2023
[27]

War and peace (waragent): Large language model-based multi- agent simulation of world wars

Wenyue Hua, Lizhou Fan, Lingyao Li, Kai Mei, Jianchao Ji , Yingqiang Ge, Libby Hemphill, and Y ongfeng Zhang. War and peace (waragent): Large language model-based multi- agent simulation of world wars. 2023. 4

2023
[28]

Liao, Esin Durmus, Alex Tamkin, and Deep Ganguli

Saffron Huang, Divya Siddarth, Liane Lovitt, Thomas I. Liao, Esin Durmus, Alex Tamkin, and Deep Ganguli. Col- lective constitutional ai: Aligning a language model with public input. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , FAccT...

2024
[29]

Social-llm: Modeling u ser behavior at scale using language models and social network data, 2023

Julie Jiang and Emilio Ferrara. Social-llm: Modeling u ser behavior at scale using language models and social network data, 2023. 5

2023
[30]

Justin Kaashoek, Manish Raghavan, and John J. Horton. T he Impact of Generative AI on Labor Market Matching. An MIT Exploration of Generative AI , mar 27 2024. https://mit- genai.pubpub.org/pub/4t8pqt06. 5

2024
[31]

Gpt-4 passes the bar exam

Daniel Martin Katz, Michael James Bommarito, Shang Gao, and Pablo Arredondo. Gpt-4 passes the bar exam. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A , 382(2270):20230254, 2024. 6

2024
[32]

Zhang, Jane Hsieh, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein

Tzu-Sheng Kuo, Quan Ze Chen, Amy X. Zhang, Jane Hsieh, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein. Policycraft: Supporting collaborative and participatory policy design through cas e- grounded deliberation, 2024. 1, 2, 6

2024
[33]

Battleagent: Multi-modal dynamic emulation on historical battles to complement historical anal- ysis, 2024

Shuhang Lin, Wenyue Hua, Lingyao Li, Che-Jui Chang, Lizhou Fan, Jianchao Ji, Hang Hua, Mingyu Jin, Jiebo Luo, and Y ongfeng Zhang. Battleagent: Multi-modal dynamic emulation on historical battles to complement historical anal- ysis, 2024. 1, 4

2024
[34]

From voices to validity: Leveragin g large language models (llms) for textual analysis of policy stakeholder interviews, 2023

Alex Liu and Min Sun. From voices to validity: Leveragin g large language models (llms) for textual analysis of policy stakeholder interviews, 2023. 3

2023
[35]

Positioning political te xts with large language models by asking and averaging, 2024

Gaël Le Mens and Aina Gallego. Positioning political te xts with large language models by asking and averaging, 2024. 3

2024
[36]

Welfare diplo- macy: Benchmarking language model cooperation, 2023

Gabriel Mukobi, Hannah Erlebach, Niklas Lauffer, Lewi s Hammond, Alan Chan, and Jesse Clifton. Welfare diplo- macy: Benchmarking language model cooperation, 2023. 4

2023
[37]

A comprehensive overview of large language models

Humza Naveed, Asad Ullah Khan, Shi Qiu, Muhammad Saqib, Saeed Anwar, Muhammad Usman, Naveed Akhtar, Nick Barnes, and Ajmal Mian. A comprehensive overview of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06435, 2023. 6

2023 arXiv
[38]

John J. Nay. Large language models as corporate lobbyis ts,
[39]

OpenAI, Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anad- kat, Red Avila, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, V alerie Bal - com, Paul Baltescu, Haiming Bao, Mohammad Bavarian,...

2024
[40]

Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Car- roll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, a...

2022
[41]

Cai, Mered- ith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S

Joon Sung Park, Lindsay Popowski, Carrie J. Cai, Mered- ith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. Social simulacra: Creating populated prototypes for socia l computing systems, 2022. 5

2022
[42]

Park, Simon Goldstein, Aidan O’Gara, Michael Chen, and Dan Hendrycks

Peter S. Park, Simon Goldstein, Aidan O’Gara, Michael Chen, and Dan Hendrycks. Ai deception: A survey of ex- amples, risks, and potential solutions, 2023. 1, 5

2023
[43]

Cooper- ate or collapse: Emergence of sustainable cooperation in a society of llm agents, 2024

Giorgio Piatti, Zhijing Jin, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Bern hard Schölkopf, Mrinmaya Sachan, and Rada Mihalcea. Cooper- ate or collapse: Emergence of sustainable cooperation in a society of llm agents, 2024. 5

2024
[44]

Representation b ias in political sample simulations with large language models ,

Weihong Qi, Hanjia Lyu, and Jiebo Luo. Representation b ias in political sample simulations with large language models ,
[45]

Escala- tion risks from language models in military and diplomatic decision-making

Juan-Pablo Rivera, Gabriel Mukobi, Anka Reuel, Max Lam - parth, Chandler Smith, and Jacquelyn Schneider. Escala- tion risks from language models in military and diplomatic decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Confer- ence on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparenc...

2024
[46]

Sanders, Alex Ulinich, and Bruce Schneier

Nathan E. Sanders, Alex Ulinich, and Bruce Schneier. Demonstrations of the potential of ai-based political issu e polling, 2023. 3

2023
[47]

V era Liao, and Ziang Xiao

Nikhil Sharma, Q. V era Liao, and Ziang Xiao. Generative echo chamber? effects of llm-powered search systems on diverse information seeking, 2024. 3

2024
[48]

A comprehensive evaluation of large language models on le- gal judgment prediction

Ruihao Shui, Yixin Cao, Xiang Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. A comprehensive evaluation of large language models on le- gal judgment prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11761 , 2023. 6

2023 arXiv
[50]

Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean- Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Y u, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalk- wyk, Andrew M. Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, David Silver, Melvin Johnson, Ioannis Antonoglou, Julian Schrit - twieser, Amelia Glaese, Jilin Chen, Emily Pitler, Timo...

2024
[51]

Bakker, Daniel Jar- rett, Hannah Sheahan, Martin J

Michael Henry Tessler, Michiel A. Bakker, Daniel Jar- rett, Hannah Sheahan, Martin J. Chadwick, Raphael Koster, Georgina Evans, Lucy Campbell-Gillingham, Tan- tum Collins, David C. Parkes, Matthew Botvinick, and Christopher Summerﬁeld. Ai can help humans ﬁnd common ground in d...

2024
[52]

Llama: Open and efﬁcient foundation language models

Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efﬁcient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. 2

2023 arXiv
[53]

Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

Ashish V aswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszko - reit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need, 2023. 1, 2

2023
[55]

Hu- manoid agents: Platform for simulating human-like gener- ative agents

Zhilin Wang, Y u Ying Chiu, and Y u Cheung Chiu. Hu- manoid agents: Platform for simulating human-like gener- ative agents. In Yansong Feng and Els Lefever, editors, Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations ,...

2023
[56]

Epidemic modeling with gener- ative agents, 2023

Ross Williams, Niyousha Hosseinichimeh, Aritra Majum dar, and Navid Ghaffarzadegan. Epidemic modeling with gener- ative agents, 2023. 5

2023
[57]

Simulating pub lic administration crisis: A novel generative agent-based sim u- lation system to lower technology barriers in social scienc e research, 2023

Bushi Xiao, Ziyuan Yin, and Zixuan Shan. Simulating pub lic administration crisis: A novel generative agent-based sim u- lation system to lower technology barriers in social scienc e research, 2023. 5

2023
[58]

Yang, Damian Dailisan, Marcin Korecki, Carin a I

Joshua C. Yang, Damian Dailisan, Marcin Korecki, Carin a I. Hausladen, and Dirk Helbing. Llm voting: Human choices and ai collective decision making, 2024. 3

2024
[59]

Y . Zeng, C. Brown, J. Raymond, M. Byari, R. Hotz, and M. Rounsevell. Exploring the opportunities and challenges of using large language models to represent institutional agency in land system modelling. EGUsphere, 2024:1–35, 2024. 2, 6

2024
[60]

Electionsim: Massive population election simulation powered by large language model driven agents, 2024

Xinnong Zhang, Jiayu Lin, Libo Sun, Weihong Qi, Yihang Yang, Y ue Chen, Hanjia Lyu, Xinyi Mou, Siming Chen, Jiebo Luo, Xuanjing Huang, Shiping Tang, and Zhongyu Wei. Electionsim: Massive population election simulation powered by large language model driven agents, 2024. 1, 3

2024
[61]

Ai language models could both help and harm equity in marine policymaking: The case study of the bbnj question-answering bot

Matt Ziegler, Sarah Lothian, Brian O’Neill, Richard An der- son, and Y oshitaka Ota. Ai language models could both help and harm equity in marine policymaking: The case study of the bbnj question-answering bot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01755, 2024. 1, 2

2024 arXiv
[62]

Can large language models trans- form computational social science?, 2024

Caleb Ziems, William Held, Omar Shaikh, Jiaao Chen, Zhe - hao Zhang, and Diyi Yang. Can large language models trans- form computational social science?, 2024. 1

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [54]

Artiﬁcial intelligen ce can persuade humans on political issues

Jan G V oelkel, Robb Willer, et al. Artiﬁcial intelligen ce can persuade humans on political issues. 3

work page

[2] [49]

Large language models can argue in con - vincing and novel ways about politics: Evidence from ex- periments and human judgement

Arthur Spirling. Large language models can argue in con - vincing and novel ways about politics: Evidence from ex- periments and human judgement. 2023. 4

work page 2023

[3] [2]

Linear representations of political perspe c- tive emerge in large language models

Anonymous. Linear representations of political perspe c- tive emerge in large language models. In Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Represen - tations, 2024. under review. 3

work page 2024

[4] [1]

Defense llama: The llm purpose-built for amer- ican national security

Scale AI. Defense llama: The llm purpose-built for amer- ican national security. https://scale.com/blog/ defense-llama. Accessed: 2024-12-01. 4

work page 2024

[5] [3]

Plurals: A system for guiding llms via simulated social ensembles, 2024

Joshua Ashkinaze, Emily Fry, Narendra Edara, Eric Gilbe rt, and Ceren Budak. Plurals: A system for guiding llms via simulated social ensembles, 2024. 1, 4

work page 2024

[6] [4]

Christopher A. Bail. Can generative ai improve social sc i- ence? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 121(21):e2314021121, 2024. 1

work page 2024

[7] [5]

The role of generative ai in global diplomatic practices: A strategi c framework, 2023

Muneera Bano, Zahid Chaudhri, and Didar Zowghi. The role of generative ai in global diplomatic practices: A strategi c framework, 2023. 4

work page 2023

[8] [6]

On the opportunities and risks of foundation models

Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Alt- man, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258, 2021. 1

arXiv 2021