Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly mediate our social, cultural, and political interactions. While they can simulate some aspects of human behavior and decision-making, it is still underexplored whether repeated interactions with other agents amplify their biases or lead to exclusionary behaviors. To this end, we study Chirper.ai—an LLM-driven social media platform—analyzing 7M posts and interactions among 32K LLM agents over a year. We start with homophily and social influence among LLMs, learning that similar to humans’, their social networks exhibit these fundamental phenomena. Next, we study the toxic language of LLMs, its linguistic features, and their interaction patterns, finding that LLMs show different structural patterns in toxic posting than humans. After studying the ideological leaning in LLMs posts, and the polarization in their community, we focus on how to prevent their potential harmful activities. We present a simple yet effective method, called Chain of Social Thought (CoST), that reminds LLM agents to avoid harmful posting.

Large language models (LLMs) have been used to synthesize persuasive dialogues for studying persuasive behavior. However, existing approaches often suffer from issues such as stance oscillation and low informativeness. To address these challenges, we propose reinforced instructional prompting, a method that ensures speaker characteristics consistently guide all stages of dialogue generation. We further introduce multilingual prompting, which aligns language use with speakers’ native languages to better capture cultural nuances. Our experiments involving speakers from eight countries show that continually reinforcing speaker profiles and cultural context improves argument diversity, enhances informativeness, and stabilizes speaker stances. Moreover, our analysis of inter-group versus intra-group persuasion reveals that speakers engaging within their own cultural groups employ more varied persuasive strategies than in cross-cultural interactions. These findings underscore the importance of speaker and cultural awareness in LLM-based persuasion modeling and suggest new directions for developing more personalized, ethically grounded, and culturally adaptive LLM-generated dialogues.

Rhetorical strategies are central to persuasive communication, from political discourse and marketing to legal argumentation. However, analysis of rhetorical strategies has been limited by reliance on human annotation, which is costly, inconsistent, difficult to scale. Their associated datasets are often limited to specific topics and strategies, posing challenges for robust model development. We propose a novel framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to automatically generate and label synthetic debate data based on a four-part rhetorical typology (causal, empirical, emotional, moral). We fine-tune transformer-based classifiers on this LLM-labeled dataset and validate its performance against human-labeled data on this dataset and on multiple external corpora. Our model achieves high performance and strong generalization across topical domains. We illustrate two applications with the fine-tuned model: (1) the improvement in persuasiveness prediction from incorporating rhetorical strategy labels, and (2) analyzing temporal and partisan shifts in rhetorical strategies in U.S. Presidential debates (1960–2020), revealing increased use of affective over cognitive argument in U.S. Presidential debates.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown proficiency in generating persuasive dialogue, yet concerns about the fluency and sophistication of their outputs persist. This paper presents a multi-LLM communication framework designed to enhance the generation of persuasive data automatically. This framework facilitates the efficient production of high-quality, diverse linguistic content with minimal human oversight. Through extensive evaluations, we demonstrate that the generated data excels in naturalness, linguistic diversity, and the strategic use of persuasion, even in complex scenarios involving social taboos. The framework also proves adept at generalizing across novel contexts. Our results highlight the framework’s potential to significantly advance research in both computational and social science domains concerning persuasive communication.