Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a three-layered human-AI framework for democratic deliberation, leveraging LLMs for observation/diversity amplification, facilitation with provenance, and human ratification. They introduce graded coverage, diversity, and erasure metrics, along with a provenance pipeline using cross-encoders and causal knockout diagnostics, to ensure accountability. Evaluations demonstrate the framework's ability to scale collective intelligence while maintaining agency and legitimacy, addressing limitations of LLM-only mediation.
LLMs can supercharge democratic deliberation, but only if humans retain ultimate control through a carefully scaffolded, accountable system that prevents AI from steamrolling diverse perspectives.
Large language models (LLMs) can support democratic deliberation at scales previously constrained by turn-taking and facilitation bandwidth. Recent work shows that LLM-generated group statements are often preferred over human-mediated outputs, while theoretical analyses argue that LLMs relax the simultaneity constraints limiting collective intelligence. Yet pure LLM mediation risks collapsing pluralism, over-optimizing for agreement, and undermining legitimacy when participants cannot contest how they are represented. We propose a symbiotic human-AI framework organized into three layers: observation and diversity amplification, facilitation with clause-level provenance, and human primacy for ratification. Our contributions include graded coverage, diversity, and erasure metrics with salience-aware weighting; a provenance pipeline combining cross-encoder similarity with causal knockout diagnostics; preference-conditioned trade-off control; equity-aware contestability workflows; adversarial robustness tests; and an evaluation protocol with ablation designs informed by evidence of LLM-as-judge limitations. The result is a testable blueprint for deliberation technology that scales collective intelligence while preserving agency and legitimacy.
