In democracies, major policy decisions typically require some form of majority or consensus, so elites must secure mass support to govern. Historically, elites could shape support only through limited instruments like schooling and mass media; advances in AI-driven persuasion sharply reduce the cost and increase the precision of shaping public opinion, making the distribution of preferences itself an object of deliberate design. We develop a dynamic model in which elites choose how much to reshape the distribution of policy preferences, subject to persuasion costs and a majority rule constraint. With a single elite, any optimal intervention tends to push society toward more polarized opinion profiles - a ``polarization pull'' - and improvements in persuasion technology accelerate this drift. When two opposed elites alternate in power, the same technology also creates incentives to park society in ``semi-lock'' regions where opinions are more cohesive and harder for a rival to overturn, so advances in persuasion can either heighten or dampen polarization depending on the environment. Taken together, cheaper persuasion technologies recast polarization as a strategic instrument of governance rather than a purely emergent social byproduct, with important implications for democratic stability as AI capabilities advance.

Diplomatic events consistently prompt widespread public discussion and debate. Public sentiment plays a critical role in diplomacy, as a good sentiment provides vital support for policy implementation, helps resolve international issues, and shapes a nation's international image. Traditional methods for gauging public sentiment, such as large-scale surveys or manual content analysis of media, are typically time-consuming, labor-intensive, and lack the capacity for forward-looking analysis. We propose a novel framework that identifies specific modifications for diplomatic event narratives to shift public sentiment from negative to neutral or positive. First, we train a language model to predict public reaction towards diplomatic events. To this end, we construct a dataset comprising descriptions of diplomatic events and their associated public discussions. Second, guided by communication theories and in collaboration with domain experts, we predetermined several textual features for modification, ensuring that any alterations changed the event's narrative framing while preserving its core facts.We develop a counterfactual generation algorithm that employs a large language model to systematically produce modified versions of an original text. The results show that this framework successfully shifted public sentiment to a more favorable state with a 70\% success rate. This framework can therefore serve as a practical tool for diplomats, policymakers, and communication specialists, offering data-driven insights on how to frame diplomatic initiatives or report on events to foster a more desirable public sentiment.

This study evaluates the ability of DeepSeek, an open-source large language model (LLM), to simulate public opinions in comparison to LLMs developed by major tech companies. By comparing DeepSeek-R1 and DeepSeek-V3 with Qwen2.5, GPT-4o, and Llama-3.3 and utilizing survey data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) and the Zuobiao dataset of China, we assess these models' capacity to predict public opinions on social issues in both China and the United States, highlighting their comparative capabilities between countries. Our findings indicate that DeepSeek-V3 performs best in simulating U.S. opinions on the abortion issue compared to other topics such as climate change, gun control, immigration, and services for same-sex couples, primarily because it more accurately simulates responses when provided with Democratic or liberal personas. For Chinese samples, DeepSeek-V3 performs best in simulating opinions on foreign aid and individualism but shows limitations in modeling views on capitalism, particularly failing to capture the stances of low-income and non-college-educated individuals. It does not exhibit significant differences from other models in simulating opinions on traditionalism and the free market. Further analysis reveals that all LLMs exhibit the tendency to overgeneralize a single perspective within demographic groups, often defaulting to consistent responses within groups. These findings highlight the need to mitigate cultural and demographic biases in LLM-driven public opinion modeling, calling for approaches such as more inclusive training methodologies.

The paper considers the use of GPT models with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) for qualitative and quantitative analytics on NATO sentiments, NATO unity and NATO Article 5 trust opinion scores in different web sources: news sites found via Google Search API, Youtube videos with comments, and Reddit discussions. A RAG approach using GPT-4.1 model was applied to analyse news where NATO related topics were discussed. Two levels of RAG analytics were used: on the first level, the GPT model generates qualitative news summaries and quantitative opinion scores using zero-shot prompts; on the second level, the GPT model generates the summary of news summaries. Quantitative news opinion scores generated by the GPT model were analysed using Bayesian regression to get trend lines. The distributions found for the regression parameters make it possible to analyse an uncertainty in specified news opinion score trends. Obtained results show a downward trend for analysed scores of opinion related to NATO unity. This approach does not aim to conduct real political analysis; rather, it consider AI based approaches which can be used for further analytics as a part of a complex analytical approach. The obtained results demonstrate that the use of GPT models for news analysis can give informative qualitative and quantitative analytics, providing important insights. The dynamic model based on neural ordinary differential equations was considered for modelling public opinions. This approach makes it possible to analyse different scenarios for evolving public opinions.

Governance institutions must respond to societal risks, including those posed by generative AI. This study empirically examines how public trust in institutions and AI technologies, along with perceived risks, shape preferences for AI regulation. Using the nationally representative 2023 Artificial Intelligence, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) survey, we assess trust in government, AI companies, and AI technologies, as well as public support for regulatory measures such as slowing AI development or outright bans on advanced AI. Our findings reveal broad public support for AI regulation, with risk perception playing a significant role in shaping policy preferences. Individuals with higher trust in government favor regulation, while those with greater trust in AI companies and AI technologies are less inclined to support restrictions. Trust in government and perceived risks significantly predict preferences for both soft (e.g., slowing development) and strong (e.g., banning AI systems) regulatory interventions. These results highlight the importance of public opinion in AI governance. As AI capabilities advance, effective regulation will require balancing public concerns about risks with trust in institutions. This study provides a foundational empirical baseline for policymakers navigating AI governance and underscores the need for further research into public trust, risk perception, and regulatory strategies in the evolving AI landscape.

The rapid development of social media has significantly reshaped the dynamics of public opinion, resulting in complex interactions that traditional models fail to effectively capture. To address this challenge, we propose an innovative approach that integrates multi-dimensional Hawkes processes with Graph Neural Network, modeling opinion propagation dynamics among nodes in a social network while considering the intricate hierarchical relationships between comments. The extended multi-dimensional Hawkes process captures the hierarchical structure, multi-dimensional interactions, and mutual influences across different topics, forming a complex propagation network. Moreover, recognizing the lack of high-quality datasets capable of comprehensively capturing the evolution of public opinion dynamics, we introduce a new dataset, VISTA. It includes 159 trending topics, corresponding to 47,207 posts, 327,015 second-level comments, and 29,578 third-level comments, covering diverse domains such as politics, entertainment, sports, health, and medicine. The dataset is annotated with detailed sentiment labels across 11 categories and clearly defined hierarchical relationships. When combined with our method, it offers strong interpretability by linking sentiment propagation to the comment hierarchy and temporal evolution. Our approach provides a robust baseline for future research.

This paper investigates the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to synthesize public opinion data, addressing challenges in traditional survey methods like declining response rates and non-response bias. We introduce a novel technique: role creation based on knowledge injection, a form of in-context learning that leverages RAG and specified personality profiles from the HEXACO model and demographic information, and uses that for dynamically generated prompts. This method allows LLMs to simulate diverse opinions more accurately than existing prompt engineering approaches. We compare our results with pre-trained models with standard few-shot prompts. Experiments using questions from the Cooperative Election Study (CES) demonstrate that our role-creation approach significantly improves the alignment of LLM-generated opinions with real-world human survey responses, increasing answer adherence. In addition, we discuss challenges, limitations and future research directions.

Large language models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing, yet face challenges in specialized tasks such as simulating opinions on environmental policies. This paper introduces a novel fine-tuning approach that integrates socio-demographic data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, uniquely using profiling factors, such as age, gender, income, education, and region. This method enhances the accuracy and representation of generated views. By emulating diverse synthetic profiles, the fine-tuned models significantly outperform pre-trained counterparts, achieving measurable improvements in capturing demographic nuances. Evaluation metrics, including Chi-Squared, Cosine Similarity, Jaccard Index, and KL-divergence, reveal a strong alignment between synthetic and real-world opinions. This work demonstrates the potential of fine-tuned LLMs tailored to societal contexts to enable more ethical and precise policy simulations. Its broader implications include deploying LLMs in domains like healthcare and education, fostering inclusive and data-driven decision-making in both research and practice.

We generalize the classic multi-agent DeGroot model for opinion dynamics to incorporate the Spiral of Silence theory from political science. This theory states that individuals may withhold their opinions when they perceive them to be in the minority. As in the DeGroot model, a community of agents is represented as a weighted directed graph whose edges indicate how much agents influence one another. However, agents whose current opinions are in the minority become silent (i.e., they do not express their opinion). Two models for opinion update are then introduced. In the memoryless opinion model ($\mbox{SOM}^-$), agents update their opinion by taking the weighted average of their non-silent neighbors' opinions. In the memory based opinion model ($\mbox{SOM}^+$), agents update their opinions by taking the weighted average of the opinions of all their neighbors, but for silent neighbors, their most recent opinion is considered. We show that for $\mbox{SOM}^-$ convergence to consensus is guaranteed for clique graphs but, unlike for the classic DeGroot, not guaranteed for strongly-connected aperiodic graphs. In contrast, we show that for $\mbox{SOM}^+$ convergence to consensus is not guaranteed even for clique graphs. We showcase our models through simulations offering experimental insights that align with key aspects of the Spiral of Silence theory. These findings reveal the impact of silence dynamics on opinion formation and highlight the limitations of consensus in more nuanced social models.

This work extends the recent opinion dynamics model from Cheng et al., emphasizing the role of group pressure in consensus formation. We generalize the findings to incorporate social influence algorithms with general time-varying, opinion-dependent weights and multidimensional opinions, beyond bounded confidence dynamics. We demonstrate that, with uniformly positive conformity levels, group pressure consistently drives consensus and provide a tighter estimate for the convergence rate. Unlike previous models, the common public opinion in our framework can assume arbitrary forms within the convex hull of current opinions, offering flexibility applicable to real-world scenarios such as opinion polls with random participant selection. This analysis provides deeper insights into how group pressure mechanisms foster consensus under diverse conditions.