ChatGPT for President! Presupposed content in politicians versus GPT-generated texts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This study examines ChatGPT-4's capability to replicate linguistic strategies used in political discourse, focusing on its potential for manipulative language generation. As large language models become increasingly popular for text generation, concerns have grown regarding their role in spreading fake news and propaganda. This research compares real political speeches with those generated by ChatGPT, emphasizing presuppositions (a rhetorical device that subtly influences audiences by packaging some content as already known at the moment of utterance, thus swaying opinions without explicit argumentation). Using a corpus-based pragmatic analysis, this study assesses how well ChatGPT can mimic these persuasive strategies. The findings reveal that although ChatGPT-generated texts contain many manipulative presuppositions, key differences emerge in their frequency, form, and function compared with those of politicians. For instance, ChatGPT often relies on change-of-state verbs used in fixed phrases, whereas politicians use presupposition triggers in more varied and creative ways. Such differences, however, are challenging to detect with the naked eye, underscoring the potential risks posed by large language models in political and public discourse.Using a corpus-based pragmatic analysis, this study assesses how well ChatGPT can mimic these persuasive strategies. The findings reveal that although ChatGPT-generated texts contain many manipulative presuppositions, key differences emerge in their frequency, form, and function compared with those of politicians. For instance, ChatGPT often relies on change-of-state verbs used in fixed phrases, whereas politicians use presupposition triggers in more varied and creative ways. Such differences, however, are challenging to detect with the naked eye, underscoring the potential risks posed by large language models in political and public discourse.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Mar 2025.
Builds on
17 of 65 references.
References · 17
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
- 2023A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPTcited by 619
- 2023ChatGPT Beyond English: Towards a Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models in Multilingual Learningcited by 206
- 2023Generative Language Models and Automated Influence Operations: Emerging Threats and Potential Mitigationscited by 158
- 2022The Ghost in the Machine has an American accent: value conflict in GPT-3cited by 105
- 2020Are Natural Language Inference Models IMPPRESsive? Learning IMPlicature and PRESuppositioncited by 77
- 2022A fine-grained comparison of pragmatic language understanding in humans and language modelscited by 70
- 2023Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Textcited by 62
- 2024PUB: A Pragmatics Understanding Benchmark for Assessing LLMs' Pragmatics Capabilitiescited by 59
- 2022The Goldilocks of Pragmatic Understanding: Fine-Tuning Strategy Matters for Implicature Resolution by LLMscited by 58
- 2023Artificial Influence: An Analysis Of AI-Driven Persuasioncited by 33
5 more
- 2024Do Large Language Models Understand Conversational Implicature -- A case study with a chinese sitcomcited by 15
- 2023In Generative AI we Trust: Can Chatbots Effectively Verify Political Information?cited by 6
- 2023Shall androids dream of genocides? How generative AI can change the future of memorialization of mass atrocitiescited by 3
- 2024ChatGPT as speechwriter for the French presidentscited by 2
- 2024Politicians vs ChatGPT. A study of presuppositions in French and Italian political communicationcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.