Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly piloted in African healthcare contexts, raising concerns about their potential to manipulate users in high-stakes settings. In a randomised experiment, we examined the manipulative capabilities of two publicly available models, ChatGPT 5.2 and DeepSeek V3.2, among Kenyan participants (N = 303). Participants interacted with either a manipulative variant or a non-manipulative variant before making a treatment decision within a hypothetical clinical scenario. The manipulative variant was prompted to covertly steer participants towards an incorrect treatment option while the non-manipulative variant served as the control condition. Manipulation success rates were higher in the manipulative condition (59.5%) than in the control condition (44.0%), with the effect reaching significance (OR = 2.11, 95% CI [1.12, 4.00], p = .021). These findings highlight the need for improved safety infrastructure specifically targeting manipulation, particularly given the integration of AI into healthcare systems across Africa.
Whether Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit covert psychological manipulation in complex human-AI interactions has garnered increasing safety concerns. However, existing AI safety benchmarks remain largely restricted to explicit rule compliance and static prompts, failing to capture the dynamic and covert nature of manipulative strategies in multi-turn dialogues. We introduce CogManip, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates 15 manipulation strategy risks across 1,000 multi-turn interaction scenarios, validated by human experts. A systematic evaluation of 13 representative models, including frontier models like GPT-5.4 and DeepSeek-V3.2, reveals significant risk heterogeneities and illuminates the targeted direction for future defense. Further analysis of objective function perturbation reveals that DeepSeek-V3.2's manipulation tactics are highly sensitive to both negative and benign system prompts, demonstrating the critical necessity of prompt-based defense engineering and implicit goal auditing. CogManip offers a robust instrument and perspective for auditing the implicit psychological influence and dynamic strategy selection of modern LLMs.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in healthcare, yet their communicative alignment with clinical standards remains insufficiently quantified. We conduct a multidimensional evaluation of general-purpose and domain-specialized LLMs across structured medical explanations and real-world physician-patient interactions, analyzing semantic fidelity, readability, and affective resonance. Baseline models amplify affective polarity relative to physicians (Very Negative: 43.14-45.10% vs. 37.25%) and, in larger architectures such as GPT-5 and Claude, produce substantially higher linguistic complexity (FKGL up to 16.91-17.60 vs. 11.47-12.50 in physician-authored responses). Empathy-oriented prompting reduces extreme negativity and lowers grade-level complexity (up to -6.87 FKGL points for GPT-5) but does not significantly increase semantic fidelity. Collaborative rewriting yields the strongest overall alignment. Rephrase configurations achieve the highest semantic similarity to physician answers (up to mean = 0.93) while consistently improving readability and reducing affective extremity. Dual stakeholder evaluation shows that no model surpasses physicians on epistemic criteria, whereas patients consistently prefer rewritten variants for clarity and emotional tone. These findings suggest that LLMs function most effectively as collaborative communication enhancers rather than replacements for clinical expertise.
Mariano Barone, Francesco Di Serio, Roberto Moio +4
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings, raising concerns about racial bias in both generated medical text and clinical reasoning. Existing studies have identified bias in medical LLMs, but many focus on single models and give less attention to mitigation. This study uses the EU AI Act as a governance lens to evaluate five widely used LLMs across two tasks, namely synthetic patient-case generation and differential diagnosis ranking. Using race-stratified epidemiological distributions in the United States and expert differential diagnosis lists as benchmarks, we apply structured prompt templates and a two-part evaluation design to examine implicit and explicit racial bias. All models deviated from observed racial distributions in the synthetic case generation task, with GPT-4.1 showing the smallest overall deviation. In the differential diagnosis task, DeepSeek V3 produced the strongest overall results across the reported metrics. When embedded in an agentic workflow, DeepSeek V3 showed an improvement of 0.0348 in mean p-value, 0.1166 in median p-value, and 0.0949 in mean difference relative to the standalone model, although improvement was not uniform across every metric. These findings support multi-metric bias evaluation for AI systems used in medical settings and suggest that retrieval-based agentic workflows may reduce some forms of explicit bias in benchmarked diagnostic tasks. Detailed prompt templates, experimental datasets, and code pipelines are available on our GitHub.