analiza aiqbench
Research indicates that LLMs significantly reduce the diversity of public discourse by converging on a narrow set of polished arguments and fixed structural arcs, failing to replicate the unique, concrete reasoning found in human-generated essays. Even when prompted for variety, models struggle to recover the full spectrum of distinct human arguments, often generating variations that fall outside the established argument space. This "argument collapse" poses a risk of homogenizing long-form debate, suggesting that current generative models may inadvertently limit the breadth of public discourse rather than expand it.
Argument Collapse: LLMs Flatten Long-Form Public Debate
arXiv:2606.01736v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As LLMs are increasingly used to draft public-facing arguments, they may flatten public debate by repeatedly introducing the same polished, plausible arguments. We study argument collapse, the tendency of essays generated by different LLMs to converge to a smaller set of main arguments, sub-arguments, and paragraph-level structures. We compare 1,039 human responses from 195 New York Times (NYT) debates, 448 human responses from 61 longer-form Boston Review (BR) forums, and 23,384 LLM-generated essays. In the NYT corpus, 65.3% of human main arguments are unique within a debate, compared to 3.4% of LLM main arguments. Asking LLMs to generate diverse answers adds variation, but a typical model recovers only about half of the distinct human main arguments, with much of the added variation falling outside the observed human argument space. Collapse also appears in sub-arguments, where among essays with the same main argument, 41.0% of human sub-arguments are unique versus 9.1% from LLM responses. Qualitatively, LLMs often reuse generalized and hedged sub-arguments, while humans prefer more concrete and topic-specific ones. Structure-wise, LLM-generated essays tend to follow a more fixed arc, often opening with a direct claim and moving quickly toward proposals. The same patterns hold in longer BR essays, suggesting that argument collapse extends beyond short-form responses.
Abstract:As LLMs are increasingly used to draft public-facing arguments, they may flatten public debate by repeatedly introducing the same polished, plausible arguments. We study argument collapse, the tendency of essays generated by different LLMs to converge to a smaller set of main arguments, sub-arguments, and paragraph-level structures. We compare 1,039 human responses from 195 New York Times (NYT) debates, 448 human responses from 61 longer-form Boston Review (BR) forums, and 23,384 LLM-generated essays. In the NYT corpus, 65.3% of human main arguments are unique within a debate, compared to 3.4% of LLM main arguments. Asking LLMs to generate diverse answers adds variation, but a typical model recovers only about half of the distinct human main arguments, with much of the added variation falling outside the observed human argument space. Collapse also appears in sub-arguments, where among essays with the same main argument, 41.0% of human sub-arguments are unique versus 9.1% from LLM responses. Qualitatively, LLMs often reuse generalized and hedged sub-arguments, while humans prefer more concrete and topic-specific ones. Structure-wise, LLM-generated essays tend to follow a more fixed arc, often opening with a direct claim and moving quickly toward proposals. The same patterns hold in longer BR essays, suggesting that argument collapse extends beyond short-form responses.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2606.01736 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2606.01736v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.01736 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 302 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Argument Collapse: LLMs Flatten Long-Form Public Debate
arXiv · 9 iun. 2026
Argument Collapse: LLMs Flatten Long-Form Public Debate
arXiv · 5 sept. 2026
Jev: System One models for Prod, not God — with Diogo Almeida, CEO, TypeSafe AI
Latent Space · 21 sept. 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · 13 oct. 2026