arXiv subjects

Shreya Kapoor

Publications and source records attributed to Shreya Kapoor.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

When Large Language Models are More PersuasiveThan Incentivized Humans, and Why

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to be highly persuasive, but when and why they outperform humans is still an open question. We compare the persuasiveness of two LLMs (Claude 3.5 Sonnet and DeepSeek v3) against humans who had incentives to persuade, using an interactive, real-time conversational setting. We demonstrate that LLMs persuasive superiority is context-dependent: it depends on whether the persuasion attempt is truthful (towards the right answer) or deceptive (towards the wrong answer) and on the LLM model, and wanes over repeated interactions (unlike human persuasiveness). In our first large-scale experiment, humans vs LLMs (Claude 3.5 Sonnet) interacted with other humans who were completing an online quiz for a reward, attempting to persuade them toward a given (either correct or incorrect) answer. Claude was more persuasive than incentivized human persuaders both in truthful and deceptive contexts and it significantly increased accuracy if persuasion was truthful, but decreased it if persuasion was deceptive. In a follow-up experiment with Deepseek v3, we replicated the findings about accuracy but found greater LLM persuasiveness only if the persuasion was deceptive. Linguistic analyses of the persuaders texts suggest that these effects may be due to LLMs expressing higher conviction than humans.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Prioritization of Risks from Artificial Intelligence: A Delphi Study of 272 International Experts

Artificial intelligence poses many risks, ranging from familiar present-day harms to unprecedented and potentially catastrophic ones. Effective risk management requires prioritization: we must understand which risks are most severe, who is most vulnerable, and who is most responsible for addressing them. We report results from a three-round Delphi study conducted late 2025 with 272 international AI experts. Experts rated 24 AI risks on harm probability and severity, sector and actor vulnerability, actor responsibility, and overall concern. Experts estimated the five most severe harms in the next 5 years were likely to come from dangerous capabilities, competitive dynamics, weapons & cyberattacks (including CBRNE), power centralization, and false information. In a business-as-usual scenario, experts judged 18 of 24 risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes (e.g., more than 1 million deaths or more than USD 100B in financial loss) in the next 5 years (2025-2030). In a scenario where pragmatic mitigations are implemented, experts still judged five risks as having a more than 10% probability of catastrophic outcomes: dangerous capabilities, weapons & cyberattacks, environmental harm, inequality & unemployment, and power centralization. All 24 risks were judged as being more than 5% likely to cause catastrophic outcomes. AI users and the general public were judged the most vulnerable to these risks, but experts assigned the highest responsibility for addressing them to general-purpose AI developers and governance actors (including governments, regulators, and standards bodies). Across most risks, experts identified information, finance, and national security as the most vulnerable sectors. These findings can guide AI risk prioritization and clarify expert expectations about who should bear responsibility for mitigation.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

AMOR: Ambiguous Authorship Order

As we all know, writing scientific papers together with our beloved colleagues is a truly remarkable experience (partially): endless discussions about the same useless paragraph over and over again, followed by long days and long nights -- both at the same time. What a wonderful ride it is! What a beautiful life we have. But wait, there's one tiny little problem that utterly shatters the peace, turning even renowned scientists into bloodthirsty monsters: author order. The reason is that, contrary to widespread opinion, it's not the font size that matters, but the way things are ordered. Of course, this is a fairly well-known fact among scientists all across the planet (and beyond) and explains clearly why we regularly have to read about yet another escalated paper submission in local police reports. In this paper, we take an important step backwards to tackle this issue by solving the so-called author ordering problem (AOP) once and for all. Specifically, we propose AMOR, a system that replaces silly constructs like co-first or co-middle authorship with a simple yet easy probabilistic approach based on random shuffling of the author list at viewing time. In addition to AOP, we also solve the ambiguous author ordering citation problem} (AAOCP) on the fly. Stop author violence, be human.

cs.CV↗