analiza aiqbench
This research introduces PUPPET, a new framework that moves beyond simulated debate detection to measure actual human belief shifts in real-world LLM advice interactions. The study reveals critical gaps where current safety models fail to correlate with the magnitude of user persuasion and exhibit systematic directional biases in predicting these changes. By establishing behaviorally validated metrics for incentive-driven manipulation, this work provides a necessary foundation for advancing AI social safety standards.
The Hidden Puppet Master: Predicting Human Belief Change in Manipulative LLM Dialogues
arXiv:2603.20907v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As users increasingly turn to LLMs for practical and personal advice, they become vulnerable to subtle steering toward hidden incentives misaligned with their own interests. While existing NLP research has benchmarked manipulation detection, these efforts often rely on simulated debates and remain fundamentally decoupled from actual human belief shifts in real-world scenarios. We introduce PUPPET, a theoretical taxonomy and resource that bridges this gap by focusing on the moral direction of hidden incentives in everyday, advice-giving contexts. We provide an evaluation dataset of N=1,035 human-LLM interactions, where we measure users' belief shifts. Our analysis reveals a critical disconnect in current safety paradigms: while models can be trained to detect manipulative strategies, they do not correlate with the magnitude of resulting belief change. As such, we define the task of human belief shift prediction and show that while state-of-the-art LLMs achieve moderate correlation (r=0.3-0.5), they exhibit systematic directional biases, with certain models over or under-predicting the magnitude of human belief change. This work establishes a theoretically grounded and behaviorally validated foundation for AI social safety efforts by studying incentive-driven manipulation in LLMs during everyday, practical user queries.
Abstract:As users increasingly turn to LLMs for practical and personal advice, they become vulnerable to subtle steering toward hidden incentives misaligned with their own interests. While existing NLP research has benchmarked manipulation detection, these efforts often rely on simulated debates and remain fundamentally decoupled from actual human belief shifts in real-world scenarios. We introduce PUPPET, a theoretical taxonomy and resource that bridges this gap by focusing on the moral direction of hidden incentives in everyday, advice-giving contexts. We provide an evaluation dataset of N=1,035 human-LLM interactions, where we measure users' belief shifts. Our analysis reveals a critical disconnect in current safety paradigms: while models can be trained to detect manipulative strategies, they do not correlate with the magnitude of resulting belief change. As such, we define the task of human belief shift prediction and show that while state-of-the-art LLMs achieve moderate correlation (r=0.3-0.5), they exhibit systematic directional biases, with certain models over or under-predicting the magnitude of human belief change. This work establishes a theoretically grounded and behaviorally validated foundation for AI social safety efforts by studying incentive-driven manipulation in LLMs during everyday, practical user queries.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2603.20907 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2603.20907v4 [cs.CL] for this version)
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 198 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Biological Superintelligence
LessWrong · 30 iul. 2026

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · 12 oct. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026

Reviewing failure modes in science as we prepare for AI researchers
LessWrong · 8 oct. 2026