📝 SummarXiv

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in group decision-making, but their influence risks fostering conformity and reducing epistemic vigilance. Drawing on the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning, we argue that confirmation bias, often seen as detrimental, can be harnessed as a resource when paired with critical evaluation. We propose a three-step process in which individuals first generate ideas independently, then use LLMs to refine and articulate them, and finally engage with LLMs as epistemic provocateurs to anticipate group critique. This framing positions LLMs as tools for scaffolding disagreement, helping individuals prepare for more productive group discussions.