These seem like interesting methods for simulating public discourse and achieving communicative rationality at some level. Its not just a wisdom of crowds, but offers a feedback mechanism that would guide the end result towards some reasonable equilibrium.
But does this become less effective the more technical and obscure the issue is? Are there empirical/conceptual barriers to this democratic form of decision making, which may be better left to experts in the field with the requisite background and evidence on hand? Moreover, you may have expected that social media and widespread communication would at least have moved others towards a more reasonable viewpoint, but on many issues, some have become more extreme in the face of feedback. Could LLM-led discourse similarly create "less" rational positions, despite expectations otherwise?
These seem like interesting methods for simulating public discourse and achieving communicative rationality at some level. Its not just a wisdom of crowds, but offers a feedback mechanism that would guide the end result towards some reasonable equilibrium.
But does this become less effective the more technical and obscure the issue is? Are there empirical/conceptual barriers to this democratic form of decision making, which may be better left to experts in the field with the requisite background and evidence on hand? Moreover, you may have expected that social media and widespread communication would at least have moved others towards a more reasonable viewpoint, but on many issues, some have become more extreme in the face of feedback. Could LLM-led discourse similarly create "less" rational positions, despite expectations otherwise?