I'd expect it to work for incorrect /"epistemically suspect" beliefs of all kinds. I expect it to *increase* accurate beliefs
I think the problem w this that we've struggled with when trying to design such a thing is that there is so much heterogeneity in terms of which conspiracies are named, and which versions of a given consp are named. It makes it really hard to come up with canned debunks
Yep agreed, that is def a good idea. FWIW we do have a conditon in the follow up where we tell the AI to write less, and this actually increases the effect (prob bc participants are more inclined to actually read it)
Agreed!
Ya although we also have a recent NHB paper with a parallel finding for humans: fact checker warning labels decrease belief in, and sharing of, false claims even among those who distrust fact-checkers: www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Do fact-checker warning labels work for those who distrust fact-checkers? Martel and Rand analyse 21 experiments and find that warning labels reduce belief in, and sharing of, false posts both on aver...
Ya, we have a follow-up paper we are currently writing up with an active control where the AI just tries to persuade them without providing any reasons or arguments, and it doesn't work. Conversely telling the AI to give evidence/facts without being polite and friendly doesn't reduce effect at all
Maybe one difference is here we let them articulate their own conspiracy theory rather than making them choose from a list? I'm not sure
Thanks Mark!
Hmm, this link works for me on phone and desktop 8cz637-thc.shinyapps.io/ConspiracyDe...
Ok great, I'll send you can an email!