Collective AI can amplify tiny perturbations into divergent decisions

Large language models (LLMs) can support democratic deliberation at scales previously constrained by turn-taking and facilitation bandwidth. Recent work shows that LLM-generated group statements are often preferred over human-mediated outputs, while theoretical analyses argue that LLMs relax the simultaneity constraints limiting collective intelligence. Yet pure LLM mediation risks collapsing pluralism, over-optimizing for agreement, and undermining legitimacy when participants cannot contest how they are represented. We propose a symbiotic human-AI framework organized into three layers: observation and diversity amplification, facilitation with clause-level provenance, and human primacy for ratification. Our contributions include graded coverage, diversity, and erasure metrics with salience-aware weighting; a provenance pipeline combining cross-encoder similarity with causal knockout diagnostics; preference-conditioned trade-off control; equity-aware contestability workflows; adversarial robustness tests; and an evaluation protocol with ablation designs informed by evidence of LLM-as-judge limitations. The result is a testable blueprint for deliberation technology that scales collective intelligence while preserving agency and legitimacy.

The aggregation of many lay estimates often outperforms individual expert judgment, a phenomenon known as the wisdom of crowds. While this is usually attributed to the independence of estimates, an even stronger effect arises through deliberation: averaging the consensus estimates of small deliberating groups outperforms the classical wisdom of crowds, with individual judgments themselves also becoming more accurate after deliberation. Whether these improvements transfer to large language models deliberating amongst themselves is unknown. Here we adapt a three-stage deliberation paradigm previously used with human participants for use with large language models from three different families, and test it across four domains of increasing real-world stakes: visual numerical estimation (Study 1), peer review of machine-learning papers (Study 2), detection of hidden malicious behavior by an artificial intelligence agent (Study 3), and sports forecasting against a real prediction market (Study 4). Across domains, deliberation reduced collective error beyond passive aggregation of independent responses, and post-deliberation individual judgments retained this collective gain. Notably, the advantage required model diversity: groups composed of clones of a single model did not benefit from deliberating. These results establish machine deliberation as a general-purpose aggregation mechanism, and point to diversity as an active ingredient.

Multi-agent systems of LLMs add discussion to majority voting and are therefore expected to be more capable. However, empirical reports conflict on whether discussion improves accuracy or leads to an incorrect consensus. Here, we introduce a parsimonious model that explains when discussion improves accuracy and when it ends in an incorrect consensus, built from four behaviors repeatedly observed in LLM agents: (1) withholding dissent, (2) internalizing a stated answer, (3) reconsidering after seeing dissent, and (4) correcting toward the correct answer. The model shows that discussion can overturn an incorrect initial majority only when the withholding rate $c$ is below a critical rate $c^* = γ/(γ+ a)$, set by the net correction rate $γ$ and the internalization rate $a$. We estimate these rates from conversation logs with a Bayesian method and place LLM teams relative to $c^*$. As the model predicts, the gain from discussion shrinks as withholding rises, across LLMs and on a hidden profile benchmark, HiddenBench, and MedEInst. Instructing agents not to withhold dissent increases this gain. Turning reasoning off also increases the gain, because reasoning raises the internalization rate $a$ and keeps agents from reconsidering a minority answer. These findings reconcile the conflicting reports and identify when discussion outperforms majority voting.