However, deliberative forums such as citizens' assemblies have shown promise in bypassing party polarization and fostering productive discussions on contentious political issues [3]. Unfortunately, most deliberations do not take place in carefully structured settings with nationally representative participants. Instead, they often occur within homogeneous groups [17]. When this happens, deliberation can lead to group polarization, where individuals become more extreme in their initial positions rather than engaging with opposing viewpoints [22]. This can be problematic if the goal of deliberation is to build common ground and consensus within a pluralistic electorate. Given that large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated some fidelity in accurately responding to opinion surveys [1, 20] and adopting different personas [12], we explore whether an LLM-powered tool can help introduce missing perspectives in group deliberation.

This research addresses the growing need to measure and understand AI literacy in the context of generative AI technologies. Through three sequential studies involving a total of 517 participants, we establish AI literacy as a coherent, measurable construct with significant implications for education, workforce development, and social equity. Study 1 (N=85) revealed a dominant latent factor - termed the "A-factor" - that accounts for 44.16% of variance across diverse AI interaction tasks. Study 2 (N=286) refined the measurement tool by examining four key dimensions of AI literacy: communication effectiveness, creative idea generation, content evaluation, and step-by-step collaboration, resulting in an 18-item assessment battery. Study 3 (N=146) validated this instrument in a controlled laboratory setting, demonstrating its predictive validity for real-world task performance. Results indicate that AI literacy significantly predicts performance on complex, language-based creative tasks but shows domain specificity in its predictive power. Additionally, regression analyses identified several significant predictors of AI literacy, including cognitive abilities (IQ), educational background, prior AI experience, and training history. The multidimensional nature of AI literacy and its distinct factor structure provide evidence that effective human-AI collaboration requires a combination of general and specialized abilities. These findings contribute to theoretical frameworks of human-AI collaboration while offering practical guidance for developing targeted educational interventions to promote equitable access to the benefits of generative AI technologies.

The early 2020s has seen the rise of two strange and potentially quite impactful social phenomena, namely pseudolaw, where users rely upon pseudolegal arguments that mimic the form and ritual of legal argumentation but fundamentally distort the content of law, and generative AI/LLMs, which generate content that uses probabilistic calculations to create outputs that look like human generated text. This article argues that the juxtaposition of the two phenomena helps to reveal that they both share two fundamental traits as both elevate form and appearance over substance and content, and users of both routinely mistake the form for the substance. In drawing upon legal theory, computer science, linguistics and cognitive psychology, the article argues that both phenomena rely upon creating illusions of meaning that users mistake for the underlying primary phenomenon. I then explore four implications of this conception of both phenomena. Firstly, both rely on human tendencies of conceptual pareidolia resulting in the erroneous perception of meaningful linguistic legal patterns from nebulous inputs. Secondly, both rely upon the confidence heuristic, the human cognitive bias for treating confidence as a proxy for competence. Thirdly, both succeed when the primary concern is with the form of the output and not its content. Fourthly, both rely heavily upon the magical thinking of users and the desire for the promise of the approach to be real. The article argues that the legal context helps to reveal a solution for the problems caused by both phenomena as it is only where users possess sufficient legal and technological literacy that it becomes possible to reveal to them the illusionary nature of the phenomena.

Many communities, including the scientific community, develop implicit writing norms. Understanding them is crucial for effective communication with that community. Writers gradually develop an implicit understanding of norms by reading papers and receiving feedback on their writing. However, it is difficult to both externalize this knowledge and apply it to one's own writing. We propose two new writing support concepts that reify document and sentence-level patterns in a given text corpus: (1) an ordered distribution over section titles and (2) given the user's draft and cursor location, many retrieved contextually relevant sentences. Recurring words in the latter are algorithmically highlighted to help users see any emergent norms. Study results (N=16) show that participants revised the structure and content using these concepts, gaining confidence in aligning with or breaking norms after reviewing many examples. These results demonstrate the value of reifying distributions over other authors' writing choices during the writing process.

The MIR serves as a critical selection mechanism for medical graduates entering specialized training in Spain. A study is to be conducted on the ability of generative AI models to meet the challenges presented by MIR, with emphasis on clinical reasoning, image interpretation and epidemiological calculations. This research evaluates LLM performance in complex clinical scenarios and explores the extent to which LLMs demonstrate medical reasoning beyond mere information recall. Findings The results reveal key insights into the performance of 22 LLMs on the MIR 2024 and 2025 exams. The exam features 210 multiple-choice questions covering diverse medical domains and incorporates case-based scenarios, image interpretation (25 questions), and laboratory data analysis.

Ensuring safe and effective use of AI requires understanding and anticipating its performance on novel tasks, from advanced scientific challenges to transformed workplace activities. So far, benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems, given the low transferability across diverse tasks. In this paper, we introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure, extract ability profiles of AI systems, and predict their performance for new task instances, in- and out-of-distribution. Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate. Illustrated for 15 large language models and 63 tasks, high explanatory power is unleashed from inspecting the demand and ability profiles, bringing insights on the sensitivity and specificity exhibited by different benchmarks, and how knowledge, metacognition and reasoning are affected by model size, chain-of-thought and distillation. Surprisingly, high predictive power at the instance level becomes possible using these demand levels, providing superior estimates over black-box baseline predictors based on embeddings or finetuning, especially in out-of-distribution settings (new tasks and new benchmarks). The scales, rubrics, battery, techniques and results presented here represent a major step for AI evaluation, underpinning the reliable deployment of AI in the years ahead. (Collaborative platform: https://kinds-of-intelligence-cfi.github.io/ADELE.)

As artificial intelligence (AI) technology becomes increasingly prevalent in the filed of education, there is a growing need for mathematics teacher education students (MTES) to demonstrate proficiency in the integration of AI with the technological pedagogical content knowledge (AI-TPACK). To study the issue, we firstly devised an systematic AI-TPACK scale and test on 412 MTES from seven universities. Through descriptive statistical analyses, we found that the current status of AI-TPACK for MTES in China is at a basic, preliminary stage. Secondly, we compared MTES between three different grades on the six variables and found that there is no discernible difference, which suggested that graduate studies were observed to have no promotion in the development of AI-TPACK competencies. Thirdly, we proposed a new AI-TPACK structural equation model (AI-TPACK-SEM) to explore the impact of self-efficacy and teaching beliefs on AI-TPACK. Our findings indicate a positive correlation between self-efficacy and AI-TPACK. We also come to a conclusion that may be contrary to common perception, excessive teaching beliefs may impede the advancement of AI-TPACK. Overall, this paper revealed the current status of AI-TPACK for MTES in China for the first time, designed a dedicated SEM to study the effect of specific factors on AI-TPACK, and proposed some suggestions on future developments.

The increasing amount of pressure related to water and energy shortages has increased the urgency of cultivating individual conservation behaviors. While the concept of nudging, i.e., providing usage-based feedback, has shown promise in encouraging conservation behaviors, its efficacy is often constrained by the lack of targeted and actionable content. This study investigates the impact of the use of large language models (LLMs) to provide tailored conservation suggestions for conservation intentions and their rationale. Through a randomized controlled trial with 1,515 university participants, we compare three virtual nudging scenarios: no nudging, traditional nudging with usage statistics, and LLM-powered nudging with usage statistics and personalized conservation suggestions. The results of statistical analyses and causal forest modeling reveal that nudging led to an increase in conservation intentions among 86.9%-98.0% of the participants. LLM-powered nudging achieved a maximum increase of 18.0% in conservation intentions, surpassing traditional nudging by 88.6%. Furthermore, structural equation modeling results reveal that exposure to LLM-powered nudges enhances self-efficacy and outcome expectations while diminishing dependence on social norms, thereby increasing intrinsic motivation to conserve.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in automating tasks and driving innovation across diverse educational applications. In this survey, we provide a systematic review of state-of-the-art research on LLM agents in education, categorizing them into two broad classes: (1) \emph{Pedagogical Agents}, which focus on automating complex pedagogical tasks to support both teachers and students; and (2) \emph{Domain-Specific Educational Agents}, which are tailored for specialized fields such as science education, language learning, and professional development. We comprehensively examine the technological advancements underlying these LLM agents, including key datasets, benchmarks, and algorithmic frameworks that drive their effectiveness. Furthermore, we discuss critical challenges such as privacy, bias and fairness concerns, hallucination mitigation, and integration with existing educational ecosystems. This survey aims to provide a comprehensive technological overview of LLM agents for education, fostering further research and collaboration to enhance their impact for the greater good of learners and educators alike.

The performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks is frequently cited as proof of their medical capabilities. We hypothesized that LLM performance on medical MCQs may in part be illusory and driven by factors beyond medical content knowledge and reasoning capabilities. To assess this, we created a novel benchmark of free-response questions with paired MCQs (FreeMedQA). Using this benchmark, we evaluated three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, and LLama-3-70B-instruct) and found an average absolute deterioration of 39.43% in performance on free-response questions relative to multiple-choice (p = 1.3 * 10-5) which was greater than the human performance decline of 22.29%. To isolate the role of the MCQ format on performance, we performed a masking study, iteratively masking out parts of the question stem. At 100% masking, the average LLM multiple-choice performance was 6.70% greater than random chance (p = 0.002) with one LLM (GPT-4o) obtaining an accuracy of 37.34%. Notably, for all LLMs the free-response performance was near zero. Our results highlight the shortcomings in medical MCQ benchmarks for overestimating the capabilities of LLMs in medicine, and, broadly, the potential for improving both human and machine assessments using LLM-evaluated free-response questions.