Jordan Robinson, Angus R. Williams, Katie Atkinson +1cs.CL
Large language models (LLMs) can generate apparently highly persuasive text, but does sounding persuasive mean arguing well? We introduce \textsc{Persuasio}, a multi-agent dialogue platform grounded in a formal argumentation-based theory of persuasion dialogues that adjudicates logical winners during free-text debates. Using this system, we generated 192 debates on a UK political topic between humans and LLMs, and evaluated 22 interlocutors through both automated adjudication and 9,702 crowdsourced pairwise judgements across 1{,}386 annotation instances. We observed a consistent decoupling between subjective and formal persuasiveness: LLMs dominated the subjective ranking yet performed substantially worse under argumentation-theoretic adjudication, where humans remained competitive. Multi-agent and retrieval-augmented variants further widened this divergence. These findings reveal a systematic gap between rhetorical fluency and formal argumentative strength in LLM-based persuasive dialogues.
Amid concerns that generative AI may standardize art interpretation, this paper examines whether LLM-based interaction can support plural art-historical narrative construction. We present Sanyu Studio, a multi-agent dialogue system that models 321 Sanyu oil paintings as agents with fact, interpretation, organization, and memory-filtering mechanisms. Based on a seven-day workshop with eight art-university participants, the study shows that user prompts, evidence organization, and cognitive tendencies shaped divergent yet coherent versions of digital Sanyu. The findings suggest that, under conditions of limited historical evidence, AI can amplify human agency and offer public audiences an interactive entry point into art-historical interpretation.