In 2024, a Democratic congressional candidate in Pennsylvania, Shamaine Daniels, used an AI chatbot named Ashley to call voters and carry on conversations with them. “Hello. My name is Ashley, and I’m an artificial intelligence volunteer for Shamaine Daniels’s run for Congress,” the calls began. Daniels didn’t ultimately win. But maybe those calls helped her cause: New research reveals that AI chatbots can shift voters’ opinions in a single conversation—and they’re surprisingly good at it.
A multi-university team of researchers has found that chatting with a politically biased AI model was more effective than political advertisements at nudging both Democrats and Republicans to support presidential candidates of the opposing party. The chatbots swayed opinions by citing facts and evidence, but they were not always accurate—in fact, the researchers found, the most persuasive models said the most untrue things.
The findings, detailed in a pair of studies published in the journals Nature and Science, are the latest in an emerging body of research demonstrating the persuasive power of LLMs. They raise profound questions about how generative AI could reshape elections.
“One conversation with an LLM has a pretty meaningful effect on salient election choices,” says Gordon Pennycook, a psychologist at Cornell University who worked on the Nature study. LLMs can persuade people more effectively than political advertisements because they generate much more information in real time and strategically deploy it in conversations, he says.
For the Nature paper, the researchers recruited more than 2,300 participants to engage in a conversation with a chatbot two months before the 2024 US presidential election. The chatbot, which was trained to advocate for either one of the top two candidates, was surprisingly persuasive, especially when discussing candidates’ policy platforms on issues such as the economy and health care. Donald Trump supporters who chatted with an AI model favoring Kamala Harris became slightly more inclined to support Harris, moving 3.9 points toward her on a 100-point scale. That was roughly four times the measured effect of political advertisements during the 2016 and 2020 elections. The AI model favoring Trump moved Harris supporters 2.3 points toward Trump.
In similar experiments conducted during the lead-ups to the 2025 Canadian federal election and the 2025 Polish presidential election, the team found an even larger effect. The chatbots shifted opposition voters’ attitudes by about 10 points.
Long-standing theories of politically motivated reasoning hold that partisan voters are impervious to facts and evidence that contradict their beliefs. But the researchers found that the chatbots, which used a range of models including variants of GPT and DeepSeek, were more persuasive when they were instructed to use facts and evidence than when they were told not to do so. “People are updating on the basis of the facts and information that the model is providing to them,” says Thomas Costello, a psychologist at American University, who worked on the project.
The catch is, some of the “evidence” and “facts” the chatbots presented were untrue. Across all three countries, chatbots advocating for right-leaning candidates made a larger number of inaccurate claims than those advocating for left-leaning candidates. The underlying models are trained on vast amounts of human-written text, which means they reproduce real-world phenomena—including “political communication that comes from the right, which tends to be less accurate,” according to studies of partisan social media posts, says Costello.
In the other study published this week, in Science, an overlapping team of researchers investigated what makes these chatbots so persuasive. They deployed 19 LLMs to interact with nearly 77,000 participants from the UK on more than 700 political issues while varying factors like computational power, training techniques, and rhetorical strategies.
The most effective way to make the models persuasive was to instruct them to pack their arguments with facts and evidence and then give them additional training by feeding them examples of persuasive conversations. In fact, the most persuasive model shifted participants who initially disagreed with a political statement 26.1 points toward agreeing. “These are really large treatment effects,” says Kobi Hackenburg, a research scientist at the UK AI Security Institute, who worked on the project.
But optimizing persuasiveness came at the cost of truthfulness. When the models became more persuasive, they increasingly provided misleading or false information—and no one is sure why. “It could be that as the models learn to deploy more and more facts, they essentially reach to the bottom of the barrel of stuff they know, so the facts get worse-quality,” says Hackenburg.
The chatbots’ persuasive power could have profound consequences for the future of democracy, the authors note. Political campaigns that use AI chatbots could shape public opinion in ways that compromise voters’ ability to make independent political judgments.
Still, the exact contours of the impact remain to be seen. “We’re not sure what future campaigns might look like and how they might incorporate these kinds of technologies,” says Andy Guess, a political scientist at Princeton University. Competing for voters’ attention is expensive and difficult, and getting them to engage in long political conversations with chatbots might be challenging. “Is this going to be the way that people inform themselves about politics, or is this going to be more of a niche activity?” he asks.
Even if chatbots do become a bigger part of elections, it’s not clear whether they’ll do more to amplify truth or fiction. Usually, misinformation has an informational advantage in a campaign, so the emergence of electioneering AIs “might mean we’re headed for a disaster,” says Alex Coppock, a political scientist at Northwestern University. “But it’s also possible that means that now, correct information will also be scalable.”
And then the question is who will have the upper hand. “If everybody has their chatbots running around in the wild, does that mean that we’ll just persuade ourselves to a draw?” Coppock asks. But there are reasons to doubt a stalemate. Politicians’ access to the most persuasive models may not be evenly distributed. And voters across the political spectrum may have different levels of engagement with chatbots. “If supporters of one candidate or party are more tech savvy than the other,” the persuasive impacts might not balance out, says Guess.
As people turn to AI to help them navigate their lives, they may also start asking chatbots for voting advice whether campaigns prompt the interaction or not. That may be a troubling world for democracy, unless there are strong guardrails to keep the systems in check. Auditing and documenting the accuracy of LLM outputs in conversations about politics may be a first step.
