Abstract
Life experiences can shape policy attitudes, but we only live one life. Citizens may therefore fail to support policies addressing risks they have never personally experienced. Narratives can make such risks immediate and personal, but personalized stories remain difficult to produce at scale. Here we ask whether AI can make distant scenarios feel concrete by simulating a participant's life as if that scenario occurred. We present the As-If Machine (AIM), a multi-agent system through which people co-write personalized counterfactual narratives---stories about their own lives under different policy futures. In two pre-registered and quota-matched experiments on science funding (N=1,007) and satellite cybersecurity (N=894), we compared AIM with two controls: reading an expert-written vignette on the same topic and co-writing with AIM about an unrelated topic. AIM increased psychological closeness---how close a risk feels to the self---by nearly identical margins in the two domains (0.36 and 0.38 standard deviations (SDs) against the vignette, 0.80 and 0.90 against unrelated writing). AIM increased psychological closeness even among participants with unfavorable views of AI. For policy attitudes, AIM's effects were 0.16 SDs against the vignette and 0.10 SDs (n.s.) against unrelated writing for science funding; the corresponding effects for satellite cybersecurity were 0.54 and 0.67 SDs. Across 23,496 human-AI autocomplete interactions, participants and the system played distinct roles: AIM supplied concrete detail that grounded the scenario, and participants supplied first-person perspective and emotion. Co-writing with the As-If Machine makes distant policy risks feel close.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.33301
