The University of Zurich’s ethics board—which can offer researchers advice but, according to the university, lacks the power to reject studies that fall short of its standards—told the researchers before they began posting that “the participants should be informed as much as possible,” according to the university statement I received. But the researchers seem to believe that doing so would have ruined the experiment. “To ethically test LLMs’ persuasive power in realistic scenarios, an unaware setting was necessary,” because it more realistically mimics how people would respond to unidentified bad actors in real-world settings, the researchers wrote in one of their Reddit comments.

This seems to be the kind of a situation where, if the researchers truly believe their study is necessary, they have to:

• accept that negative publicity will result
• accept that people may stop cooperating with them on this work
• accept that their reputation may not be considered spotless after the fact
• ensure that they won’t do anything illegal

After that, if they still feel their study is necesary, maybe they should run it and publish the results.

As for the question of whether a tailor-made response considering someone’s background can sway opinions better - that’s been obvious through ages of diplomacy. (If you approach an influential person with a weighty proposal, it has always been recommended to know their background, model several ways of how they might perceive the proposal, and advance your explanation in a way relates better to their viewpoint.)

Thus, AI bots which take into consideration a person’s background will - if implemented right - indeed be more powerful at swaying opinions.