AI chatbots arguing with each other split into cliques or fall in line, and the pattern depends on who they are talking to and which model is doing the talking.
A paper posted to arXiv, "Collective Opinion Dynamics in Structured LLM Populations" (arXiv:2604.11312v3), ran large language model agents through multi-round debates across social networks built with different levels of homophily - how tightly agents cluster with others like them - and different group sizes, with ten independent trials per configuration. Low-homophily networks, where agents mix across groups, pushed opinions toward consensus, while tightly clustered, high-homophily networks let opposing views persist. The choice of underlying model mattered just as much as the network structure: different LLMs updated their opinions differently under identical conditions. Giving agents visibility into their neighbors' views shifted outcomes too, in ways that varied by model.
That's not an academic footnote. LLM agents already run recommendation systems, moderate forums, and populate multi-agent products - all places where one agent's opinion shift can cascade through a network of others. If which model you pick changes whether a population of agents converges or splits, that's a design decision with consequences nobody's accounting for yet.
It's a tidy, slightly uncomfortable finding: software trained to predict human text also inherited one of our messier social habits, letting who you talk to decide what you believe.