arXiv subjects

Jonas R. Kunst

Publications and source records attributed to Jonas R. Kunst.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

IO Factory: Simulating AI-Enabled Influence Campaigns at Scale

We introduce IO Factory, an AI-driven framework for simulating information and influence campaigns as fully integrated, traceable processes. The threat of digital manipulation now extends beyond persuasive text from individual language models to AI swarms, i.e., persistent groups of coordinated agents that adapt to platform feedback and disguise organized campaigns as ordinary social interaction. Because such campaigns cannot be identified from isolated messages alone, they must be analyzed across a continuous spectrum of planning, platform action, exposure, interpretation, measurement, and adaptation. IO Factory represents this process inside a controlled simulated platform, linking actor roles, platform actions, exposure records, structured model-based evaluations, and configured changes in the simulated population. We implement the architecture and evaluate it across configurations of up to 100,000 agents. The results show that IO Factory executes campaign timelines at scale and produces inspectable evidence of exposure and measured movement in configured belief variables. By recording the actors, objectives, action constraints, exposure paths, and measurement rules used in each run, IO Factory supports reproducible research and red-team analysis of coordinated influence.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The persuasive power of large language models does not depend on their perceived national origin

Conversational AI developed by geopolitical rivals reaches citizens worldwide, raising concerns that it could sway public opinion or be rejected as foreign propaganda, with consequences for democratic discourse and information sovereignty. Yet, whether an AI's perceived national origin shapes its persuasive power is unknown. In a preregistered randomized experiment, 403 adults from a nationally representative United States sample held a three-round debate with a chatbot introduced as either American ("DiscoveryAI") or Chinese ("ZhengheAI"), discussing a political or non-political topic. In all conditions, participants actually conversed with the same model (GPT-4o), instructed to argue against their initial position. We combined pre- and post-conversation self-reports of attitudes, trust, and collective narcissism with computational analyses of 1,209 participant turns, including LLM-coded stance and argumentative conduct, stance-sensitive embeddings, and keyword-masked emotion and toxicity classifiers. The conversations produced substantial attitude changes in every condition. Critically, the nationality label affected neither self-reported attitude change nor expressed stance, concessions, counterarguing, or affect, and equivalence tests and Bayes factors largely supported these null effects. The label's only reliable footprint was lower pre-conversation human-like trust in the Chinese model, whereas functionality trust was unaffected. Political topics slowed stance movement toward the AI's position, and collective narcissism predicted less attitude change regardless of origin, acting as a general barrier rather than an out-group filter. Users thus initially withhold social trust from a rival's AI yet still assimilate its arguments; origin labeling and transparency requirements alone may offer weak protection against foreign influence operations conducted through conversational AI.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Can AI Debias the News? LLM Interventions Improve Cross-Partisan Receptivity but LLMs Overestimate Their Own Effectiveness

Partisan news media erode cross-partisan trust, but large language models (LLMs) offer the potential of debiasing such content at scale. Across two pre-registered experiments, we tested whether LLM-generated debiasing of liberal news headlines improves conservative readers' trust-relevant judgments. In Study 1, subtle lexical debiasing (replacing emotive words with moderate synonyms) had no effect on any outcome. Study 2 found that a more substantive reframing intervention significantly increased conservatives' perceived trustworthiness, completeness, and willingness to engage with liberal news headlines, without producing a backfire effect among liberals. In Study 1, the intervention produced robust effects across silicon participants simulated with six different models (o3-mini, o3, GPT-4o mini, GPT-4o, GPT-5 mini, and GPT-5), whereas it had no impact on human readers. In Study 2, the intervention's effects among silicon participants generally aligned directionally with human responses but were significantly larger for some outcomes, and three models (o3, GPT-4o mini, and GPT-4o) incorrectly predicted a liberal backfire effect absent in humans. Moderation analyses revealed that the models' implicit theory of who responds to debiasing diverged from the psychological profile that actually predicted human responsiveness. Most strikingly, in Study 2, participants simulated by each of the six models suggested that debiasing effects would be stronger among participants high in political in-group identification. Yet, no such moderation was observed among human participants. These findings demonstrate that LLM-based debiasing can improve cross-partisan receptivity when targeting ideological framing rather than surface-level language, but that current models lack both the quantitative accuracy and qualitative psychological fidelity to evaluate their own interventions without human oversight.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Can Conversational AI loosen Us-Versus-Them Boundaries? The Effects of Common, Dual, and Separate Identity Framings on Pro-Immigrant Intergroup Helping

Rising immigration has intensified intergroup tensions in many countries. Traditional bias-reduction programs remain difficult to scale and increasingly constrained by U.S. policy. This preregistered experiment tested whether conversational AI can shift how majority-group members categorize and relate to Latine immigrants. Drawing on the common ingroup identity model, a quota-representative national sample of 658 non-Latine White U.S. adults completed five rounds of dialogue with a LLM (GPT-4o). The model was instructed to frame Latine immigrants in terms of a common ingroup identity (a shared American identity), a dual identity (both Latine and American), or a separate identity (distinct cultural boundaries), or to discuss an unrelated topic in a control condition. The manipulations altered categorization: relative to control, common ingroup identity and dual identity conversations lowered separate categorization, and dual identity conversations raised dual categorization. Although direct effects on behavior and pro-diversity beliefs were nonsignificant, willingness to act was significantly higher in the conditions emphasizing a superordinate identity (common ingroup and dual identity). A path model further revealed indirect associations: both conditions reduced separate categorization, which in turn correlated with greater willingness to act. Semantic similarity analyses of the transcripts confirmed that conversations tracked their assigned narratives; participants' convergence with shared-identity language related positively, and with separate-identity language negatively, to willingness to act. These effects were largely consistent across moderators (need for closure, openness to experience, and political orientation). The findings show that brief AI conversations can loosen us-versus-them boundaries while underscoring the gap between cognitive recategorization and behavior.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Puppets or partners? Governing cyborg propaganda in the digital public square

The distinction between genuine grassroots activism and automated influence operations is collapsing. While contemporary policy debates prioritize fully autonomous generative agents and synthetic content, this paper offers a conceptual contribution: we develop 'cyborg propaganda,' a closed-loop architecture combining verified human accounts with algorithmic automation to generate personalized content at scale, as a distinct and undertheorized threat to democratic discourse. By relying on verified citizens to ratify AI-generated messages, these campaigns exploit a regulatory gray zone that frameworks built on the human/bot binary (including the EU AI Act and Section 230) are structurally unable to address. Drawing on a conceptual analysis of coordination platforms and comparative examination of governance frameworks across democratic and non-democratic contexts, we analyze this paradox across micro, meso, and macro levels. We examine whether cyborg propaganda democratizes political power by unionizing influence or reduces citizens to cognitive proxies of a hidden directive, arguing that it shifts political discourse from a contest of ideas to a battle of algorithmic campaigns. We propose three regulatory responses: classifying coordination hubs as political action committees to enforce supply-chain transparency; mandating researcher access to platform data through DSA-style mechanisms; and establishing risk standards penalizing amplification of synthetically coordinated content. Comparative analysis reveals that viability varies structurally. Democratic states are simultaneously the most capable of regulation and the most rule-of-law constrained. By contrast, non-democratic actors face no comparable accountability, making international risk standards the primary cross-border enforcement mechanism.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

How malicious AI swarms can threaten democracy: The fusion of agentic AI and LLMs marks a new frontier in information warfare

Advances in AI offer the prospect of manipulating beliefs and behaviors on a population-wide level. Large language models and autonomous agents now let influence campaigns reach unprecedented scale and precision. Generative tools can expand propaganda output without sacrificing credibility and inexpensively create falsehoods that are rated as more human-like than those written by humans. Techniques meant to refine AI reasoning, such as chain-of-thought prompting, can just as effectively be used to generate more convincing falsehoods. Enabled by these capabilities, a disruptive threat is emerging: swarms of collaborative, malicious AI agents. Fusing LLM reasoning with multi-agent architectures, these systems are capable of coordinating autonomously, infiltrating communities, and fabricating consensus efficiently. By adaptively mimicking human social dynamics, they threaten democracy. Because the resulting harms stem from design, commercial incentives, and governance, we prioritize interventions at multiple leverage points, focusing on pragmatic mechanisms over voluntary compliance.

cs.CY↗