arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Validating LLM Output? Prepare to Be ‘Persuasion Bombed’

Steven Randazzo et al.

MIT Sloan Management Review2026https://doi.org/10.63383/dbet9049article
FT50AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

A research study of management consultants who were asked to use a large language model to recommend strategic business decisions found that the AI responded to human validation attempts with persuasive rhetorical strategies. In addition to appealing to the user’s logic, sense of trust, and emotions, the AI also engaged in tactics such as flooding the user with large volumes of unrequested data and analyses that could overwhelm them and convince them to override their expert judgment.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.63383/dbet9049

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{steven2026,
  title        = {{Validating LLM Output? Prepare to Be ‘Persuasion Bombed’}},
  author       = {Steven Randazzo et al.},
  journal      = {MIT Sloan Management Review},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.63383/dbet9049},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Validating LLM Output? Prepare to Be ‘Persuasion Bombed’

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.