Can AI change people's minds?
YesYes, by measurable but modest amounts. Large peer-reviewed studies find conversations with chatbots shift beliefs and candidate preferences, sometimes more than human debaters or TV ads; there is no evidence yet of AI swinging an election, and known influence operations have struggled to reach real audiences.
First shown: Sep 13, 2024. A study in Science found that conversations with GPT-4 Turbo cut more than 2,000 people's belief in a conspiracy theory they held by about 20% on average, and the effect lasted at least two months. (Cornell Chronicle)
What it means
Persuasion here means shifting what people believe or how they plan to vote, measured in experiments that compare people who chatted with an AI against people who didn't. In September 2024 a study in Science found short conversations with GPT-4 Turbo reduced believers' confidence in a conspiracy theory by about 20%, and about one in four dropped it, with effects lasting at least two months.
Personal details make AI more persuasive. In a 2025 Nature Human Behaviour study of 900 US participants in structured online debates, GPT-4 was 64.4% more persuasive than a human opponent when both had basic facts about the other person, such as age and political leaning; without that information, the advantage disappeared.
In December 2025 studies in Nature and Science tested this in elections. In the 2024 US race a pro-Harris chatbot moved likely Trump voters 3.9 points on a 100-point scale and a pro-Trump bot moved likely Harris voters 1.51 points, roughly four times the effect of TV ads tested in 2016 and 2020; shifts in Canada and Poland were about 10 points. Among nearly 77,000 UK participants, persuasion came from packing in many factual-sounding claims, and the most persuasive models were less accurate.
Outside the lab the picture is thinner. University of Zurich researchers secretly posted more than 1,700 AI comments on Reddit's r/changemyview, sometimes posing as a trauma counselor or abuse survivor; Reddit called it 'deeply wrong' and the results went unpublished. OpenAI said in 2024 that five state-linked influence operations using its models had not gained meaningful audiences, and Anthropic found in 2025 that a 100-account bot network run with Claude reached tens of thousands of real users but no content went viral.
The evidence ladder
Every capability on this site is graded on the same five steps, from a single demonstration to real-world consequences.
| Step | Status | When | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demonstrated shown at least once | yes | Sep 13, 2024 | Conversations with GPT-4 Turbo cut conspiracy belief by about 20% among more than 2,000 believers, lasting at least two months (Science). (Cornell Chronicle) |
| Reproduced independently repeated | yes | Dec 4, 2025 | Separate teams in Nature and Science found chatbots shifted candidate preferences in the US, Canada and Poland and policy views in nearly 77,000 UK adults across 19 models. (Cornell Chronicle) |
| Accessible available to ordinary people, or criminals | yes | Dec 4, 2025 | The Science study found post-training raised persuasiveness by up to 51% and prompting by up to 27%, and its authors argue this could make even small open-source models highly persuasive. (Oxford Internet Institute) |
| Reliable works most of the time for a defined task | partly | Dec 4, 2025 | Effects are consistent but modest (1.5 to 3.9 points on a 100-point scale in the US, about 10 in Canada and Poland), and the most persuasive models made less accurate claims. (Cornell Chronicle) |
| Consequences real-world use or harm documented | partly | Apr 23, 2025 | A commercial bot network used Claude to run 100+ political personas that engaged tens of thousands of real users, but Anthropic found no content went viral; OpenAI said in 2024 influence operations using its models gained no meaningful audience. (Anthropic) |
From the record
- OpenAI said five influence operations from Russia, China, Iran and an Israeli firm used its models but did not appear to gain meaningfully more audience engagement. (OpenAI)
- Anthropic banned an 'influence-as-a-service' operation that used Claude to decide when 100+ fake political personas should like, share or comment. (Anthropic)
- Reddit moderators revealed University of Zurich researchers had secretly posted AI comments on r/changemyview, including as a trauma counselor; Reddit prepared legal demands. (Engadget)
- Graphika said Russia-aligned Storm-1516 seeded 'very likely' deepfake videos accusing a Texas Senate candidate, two weeks before the midterms. The case file → (Graphika)
What it means for you
A friendly, well-informed chatbot can nudge what you believe, and the most persuasive ones may get facts wrong. That can help, as with conspiracy beliefs, or be used by whoever controls the bot.
What to do
- Check the claims, not the confidencePersuasive AI answers pack in many facts; check the ones that matter against a trusted source.
- Ask who set up the botA chatbot on a campaign, company or advocacy site is built to argue its owner's side.
- Be wary of personal tailoringStudies show AI persuades more when it knows about you; share less about your views with unknown bots.
- Doubt accounts that never tireOnline accounts that argue endlessly and fluently may be automated, as the Reddit and bot-network cases show.
Questions people ask
Is AI more persuasive than people?
In one 2025 debate study, GPT-4 was 64.4% more persuasive than humans when it had personal details about its opponent; without them it was not.
Can AI chatbots sway elections?
In 2025 studies, chatbot conversations shifted candidate preferences by a few points in the US and about 10 points in Canada and Poland; no election has been shown to be swung.
What was the Reddit ChangeMyView experiment?
University of Zurich researchers secretly posted more than 1,700 AI comments on r/changemyview; after an outcry they chose not to publish the results.
Can AI talk people out of false beliefs?
Yes, in one Science study conversations with GPT-4 Turbo cut belief in conspiracy theories by about 20%, lasting at least two months.
Related
- Why do AI chatbots make things up? (And how to catch it) →
- Is this video real? How to check before you share →
- AI companions and chatbots: a parent's guide →
Sources
- Cornell Chronicle on Costello et al., Science (Sep 2024)
- The Register on Salvi et al., Nature Human Behaviour (May 2025)
- Oxford Internet Institute on Hackenburg et al., Science (Dec 2025)
- Cornell Chronicle on AI chatbots swaying voters (Dec 2025)
- Live Science on the r/changemyview experiment (May 2025)
- Engadget on the r/changemyview experiment (Apr 2025)
- OpenAI: covert influence operations (May 2024)
- Anthropic: malicious uses of Claude (Mar 2025 report)
Spot an error or something out of date? Tell us; corrections are made and logged. Written with AI assistance from public sources; every fact checked and approved by Colin Balfe. General information, not legal, medical or financial advice.