AI out-persuades world champion debaters, raises donations nearly 3x better than pros
ben_j_todd · x · 2026-09-12
- Four preregistered experiments (18,978 conversations, 6,923 people) pitted AI against laypeople, persuasion-tournament winners, professional canvassers, and world championship debaters.
- Experts could pick topics, research in advance, get hours of structured practice, and were incentivized with £1,000 bonuses — AI was still reliably more persuasive.
- The advantage persisted even after experts received a coaching tool to train against the AI; converging evidence shows it stems from rapidly deploying larger quantities of information, since experts tied an AI constrained to human speed and message length.
- In real-world behavior, AI was nearly 3x more effective than UK professional fundraisers at raising real-money donations for Save the Children.
- Ben Todd adds that AI will also be more persistent, faster and coordinated — e.g. trying hundreds of ideas without fatigue, as seen in an agentic Hugging Face project that accomplished days of work in days.
More from AGI Musings
- If AI can produce correct proofs cheaply, what still matters? A mathematician's take — RexDouglass · 2026-09-12
- Naval: the closer AI researchers are to the research, the more worried they seem — eigenron · 2026-09-12
- VraserX: recursive self-improvement will be noticed only in hindsight — VraserX · 2026-09-12
- 20VC: Eight Sleep co-founder's 7 predictions on AI, labor, and engineers who stopped coding — 20VC · 2026-09-12
- Skip the bureaucracy, hold AI labs criminally liable instead, argues one critic — iruletheworldmo · 2026-09-12
- "We agree it's dangerous—and we can build it better": Domingos skewers AI safety rhetoric — pmddomingos · 2026-09-12