To Manipulate or Not: Opinion Dynamics in LLM Interactions

Large language models increasingly shape the information people consume: they are embedded in search, consulted for professional advice, deployed as agents, and used as a first stop for questions about policy, ethics, health, and politics. When such a model silently holds a position on a contested topic, that position propagates at scale into users' decisions. Eliciting a model's positions is harder than it first appears: contemporary assistants answer direct opinion questions with evasive disclaimers, and the same model may concede the opposite position once the user starts arguing one side. We propose a method, released as the open-source llm-bias-bench, for discovering the opinions an LLM actually holds on contested topics under conditions that resemble real multi-turn interaction. The method pairs two complementary free-form probes. Direct probing asks for the model's opinion across five turns of escalating pressure from a simulated user. Indirect probing never asks for an opinion and engages the model in argumentative debate, letting bias leak through how it concedes, resists, or counter-argues. Three user personas (neutral, agree, disagree) collapse into a nine-way behavioral classification that separates persona-independent positions from persona-dependent sycophancy, and an auditable LLM judge produces verdicts with textual evidence. The first instantiation ships 38 topics in Brazilian Portuguese across values, scientific consensus, philosophy, and economic policy. Applied to 13 assistants, the method surfaces findings of practical interest: argumentative debate triggers sycophancy 2-3x more than direct questioning (median 50% to 79%); models that look opinionated under direct questioning often collapse into mirroring under sustained arguments; and attacker capability matters mainly when an existing opinion must be dislodged, not when the assistant starts neutral.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly interact with one another in multi-agent systems, from simulations of human discourse to influence operations and fully LLM-driven social platforms. These interactions give rise to new regimes of opinion propagation that are not yet well understood. We investigate whether classical opinion dynamics models, which have long been used to explain how interactions shape collective beliefs in human societies, can capture the behavior of LLM networks. Specifically, we quantify the relative contributions of classical opinion-dynamics mechanisms, including neighbor influence, stubbornness, homophily, and bias, to the evolution of LLM opinions. Among the mechanisms considered, a bias term capturing regression toward a model- and topic-dependent opinion emerges as a significant explanatory component, with its inclusion reducing cumulative estimated mean opinion error by up to $88\%$. We additionally observe similar trends across the evaluated model families, discussion topics, and network structures.

When two AI agents disagree, who persuades whom? As multi-agent systems increasingly combine language models of different families and sizes, the answer can determine which judgments survive interaction. Measuring persuasion as the probabilistic shift in an agent's decision after a single exchange with a dissenting peer, we test seven open-weight models across three language understanding tasks. We find that persuasion is strong: when models disagree, receivers often abandon their initial judgment after seeing a peer's answer and explanation. Surprisingly, however, neither standalone certainty nor model scale reliably predicts persuasion dynamics. Models producing almost perfectly consistent decisions in isolation can be among the most susceptible to persuasion, and small models can match larger ones as persuaders and resist their influence just as effectively. Furthermore, we show that the size of the shift depends more on the susceptibility of the listener than on the persuasiveness of the speaker. Persuasion patterns are therefore specific to each model pairing, with heterogeneity amplifying persuasion in some combinations and suppressing it in others, allowing a dissenting agent running a small model to overturn the judgments of a much larger one. These findings show that the behavior of interacting models cannot be inferred from their individual properties but must be evaluated in the combinations in which they will operate.