Evidence of a log scaling law for political persuasion with large language models
Abstract
Large language models can now generate political messages as persuasive as those written by humans, raising concerns about how far this persuasiveness may continue to increase with model size. Here, we generate 720 persuasive messages on 10 U.S. political issues from 24 language models spanning several orders of magnitude in size. We then deploy these messages in a large-scale randomized survey experiment (N = 25,982) to estimate the persuasive capability of each model. Our findings are twofold. First, we find evidence of a log scaling law: model persuasiveness is characterized by sharply diminishing returns, such that current frontier models are barely more persuasive than models smaller in size by an order of magnitude or more. Second, mere task completion (coherence, staying on topic) appears to account for larger models' persuasive advantage. These findings suggest that further scaling model size will not much increase the persuasiveness of static LLM-generated messages.
Study specs
Generated 720 persuasive messages on 10 U.S. political issues using 24 language models of varying sizes; evaluated persuasiveness through a large-scale randomized survey experiment.
- Authors
- K Hackenburg,BM Tappin,P Röttger,S Hale
- Institution
- University of Oxford,The Alan Turing Institute,Royal Holloway,University of London,Bocconi University,Meedan
- Discipline
- Political Science,Artificial Intelligence
- Sample Size
- N=25,982
- Study Type
- Experimental Study
- Year
- 2024
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source Google Scholar
Measured Outcomes
Persuasiveness of large language model-generated political messages across different model sizes.
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.