The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2404.15058 · v1 · pith:DI7BASMP · submitted 2024-04-23 · cs.CY · cs.AI

A Mechanism-Based Approach to Mitigating Harms from Persuasive Generative AI

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:DI7BASMPrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.CY cs.AI
keywords persuasionharmsgenerativepersuasivedefinitionsapproachesforwardharm
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Recent generative AI systems have demonstrated more advanced persuasive capabilities and are increasingly permeating areas of life where they can influence decision-making. Generative AI presents a new risk profile of persuasion due the opportunity for reciprocal exchange and prolonged interactions. This has led to growing concerns about harms from AI persuasion and how they can be mitigated, highlighting the need for a systematic study of AI persuasion. The current definitions of AI persuasion are unclear and related harms are insufficiently studied. Existing harm mitigation approaches prioritise harms from the outcome of persuasion over harms from the process of persuasion. In this paper, we lay the groundwork for the systematic study of AI persuasion. We first put forward definitions of persuasive generative AI. We distinguish between rationally persuasive generative AI, which relies on providing relevant facts, sound reasoning, or other forms of trustworthy evidence, and manipulative generative AI, which relies on taking advantage of cognitive biases and heuristics or misrepresenting information. We also put forward a map of harms from AI persuasion, including definitions and examples of economic, physical, environmental, psychological, sociocultural, political, privacy, and autonomy harm. We then introduce a map of mechanisms that contribute to harmful persuasion. Lastly, we provide an overview of approaches that can be used to mitigate against process harms of persuasion, including prompt engineering for manipulation classification and red teaming. Future work will operationalise these mitigations and study the interaction between different types of mechanisms of persuasion.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. LLM Wardens: Mitigating Adversarial Persuasion with Third-Party Conversational Oversight

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A secondary warden LLM halves the success rate of hidden-goal adversarial LLMs in steering user decisions while causing only minor interference with genuine interactions.

  2. Using Cognitive Models to Improve Language Model Simulation of Human Persuasion Games

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Equation-to-Behavior Prompting lets large LLMs match cognitive models like Bayesian updating in persuasion games; RL training cuts small-model belief error by 26.5% and improves diverse training outcomes by 2.5-12%.

  3. Artificial intelligence can persuade people to take political actions

    cs.CY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AI can substantially increase real behaviors such as petition signing and charitable donations, but these effects do not correspond to changes in attitudes and are better achieved through behavioral strategies than at...

  4. Information Access of the Oppressed: Freirean Design for Emancipatory Information Access

    cs.CY 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Extends Freire's theories to critique technologist-user dynamics in IA and advocates Freirean Design for emancipatory platform co-construction by communities.