IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0347757.html

LLM-impersonated debate contributions are more authentic, relevant and coherent than their original: A representative study using BBC1’s Question Time

Author

Listed:
  • Steffen Herbold
  • Alexander Trautsch
  • Zlata Kikteva
  • Annette Hautli-Janisz

Abstract

Generative AI has the potential to pollute the public information sphere with made-up content, posing a significant threat to the cohesion of societies at large. This paper offers the first large-scale and systematic study of how authentic, relevant and coherent impersonated content from Large Language Models (LLMs) is perceived by the general public. Based on a cross-section of British society, we show that LLM-generated responses to questions drawn from a broadcast political debate programme in the UK are judged to be more authentic and relevant than the original responses given by the panel members who were impersonated. We also show that stylistic differences do not influence these judgments, meaning that the distinction of original and generated content is challenging for the general public. Taken together, this means that LLMs can be made to deceive the public regarding the nature of statements in the political domain, with the consequence that there is a dire need to inform the general public of the potential harm this can have on society.

Suggested Citation

  • Steffen Herbold & Alexander Trautsch & Zlata Kikteva & Annette Hautli-Janisz, 2026. "LLM-impersonated debate contributions are more authentic, relevant and coherent than their original: A representative study using BBC1’s Question Time," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(7), pages 1-16, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0347757
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0347757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0347757
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0347757&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0347757?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0347757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.