The European project “Understanding Misinformation and Science in Societal Debates” (UnMiSSeD) aims at understanding the overlap between science and misinformation with a particular focus on the COVID...

Human cooperation arises naturally and is essential for the development of successful societies. This study aims to identify which aspects of the interaction influence societal cooperation and defection. Specifically, we investigate human cooperation ...

Author summary Infectious diseases such as measles and Ebola have shown how quickly outbreaks can spread and how essential vaccination is to protect individuals. In our work, we investigate a spectrum...

During the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific understanding related to the topic evolved rapidly. Along with scientific information being discussed widely, a large circulation of false information, labelle...

We present a new approach to quantify urban sprawl using tools from surface growth physics. Analyzing built-up area expansion in 19 cities (1985-2015), we uncover anisotropic growth with branch-like e...

Salvi et al. find that GPT-4 outperforms humans in debates when given basic sociodemographic data. With personalization, GPT-4 had 81.2% higher odds of post-debate agreement than humans.

When provided basic demographic information on their opponents, AI chatbots adapted their arguments and became more persuasive than humans in online debates.

OpenAI’s GPT-4 is much better at getting people to accept its point of view during an argument than humans are—but there’s a catch.

Study author warns of implications for elections and says ‘malicious actors’ are probably using LLM tools already Artificial intelligence can do just as well as humans, if not better, when it comes to persuading others in a debate, and not just because it cannot shout, a study has found. Experts say the results are concerning, not least as it has potential implications for election integrity. Continue reading...

📢🚨Excited to share our new pre-print: “On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trial”, with @manoelribeiro, @ricgallotti, and @cervisiarius. https://t.co/wNRMFtgCrN A thread 🧵: https://t.co/BKNbnI8avV

Salvi et al. find that GPT-4 outperforms humans in debates when given basic sociodemographic data. With personalization, GPT-4 had 81.2% higher odds of post-debate agreement than humans.

A hub for the Complexity and Network Science community to gather and share resources.