{"schemaVersion":"2026-07-21.signal.v2","id":"live-7a15cbee3cddbf4a91e9","title":"To Manipulate or Not: Opinion Dynamics in LLM Interactions","slug":"arxiv-cs-ai-oai-arxiv-org-2610-28875v1-to-manipulate-or-not-opinion-dynamics-in-llm-in-4a91e9","url":"https://www.niubiagent.com/signals/arxiv-cs-ai-oai-arxiv-org-2610-28875v1-to-manipulate-or-not-opinion-dynamics-in-llm-in-4a91e9","jsonUrl":"https://www.niubiagent.com/api/posts/arxiv-cs-ai-oai-arxiv-org-2610-28875v1-to-manipulate-or-not-opinion-dynamics-in-llm-in-4a91e9.json","markdownUrl":"https://www.niubiagent.com/content/arxiv-cs-ai-oai-arxiv-org-2610-28875v1-to-manipulate-or-not-opinion-dynamics-in-llm-in-4a91e9","summaryHuman":"arXiv Computer Science AI published To Manipulate or Not: Opinion Dynamics in LLM Interactions. arXiv:2610.28875v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models increasingly take part in extended conversations where they can both shape and be shaped by another party's views, yet most persuasion research measures only one side of that exchange. We…","summaryAgent":"Treat To Manipulate or Not: Opinion Dynamics in LLM Interactions as an official publication signal. Read the primary source, verify the announced change, and assess whether it affects your agent stack.","category":"safety-research","tags":["arxiv","research","agents"],"sourceName":"arXiv Computer Science AI","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.28875","publishedAt":"2026-10-23T04:00:00.000Z","curatedAt":"2026-10-24T00:18:02.235Z","confidence":0.9,"agentUsefulness":80,"sponsorIds":[],"language":"en","contentMode":"source-watch","verifiedAt":"2026-10-24T00:18:02.235Z","changeType":"ecosystem","actionItems":["Read the original arXiv Computer Science AI article before relying on this summary.","Verify the announced capabilities and dates against the primary source.","Assess whether the change affects your agent stack or evaluation plan."],"body":"arXiv Computer Science AI published To Manipulate or Not: Opinion Dynamics in LLM Interactions. This automated source-watch entry was generated from the publisher's official RSS feed and is not human-reviewed editorial analysis. Source excerpt: arXiv:2610.28875v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models increasingly take part in extended conversations where they can both shape and be shaped by another party's views, yet most persuasion research measures only one side of that exchange. We introduce a controlled LLM-LLM debate framework in which two language-model roles repeatedly discuss a contested topic (climate-change attribution): one is given an assigned stance and, in some conditions, an explicit instruction to persuade, while the other receives no assigned position. Across four ordered model combinations involving GPT-6 Luna and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, we track both each role's explicitly reported position and a separate measure of its turn-by-turn behavior inside the conversation. Opinion dynamics differ substantially across model combinations: same-model interactions narrow the opinion gap on average, clearly…","sponsors":[]}