Can LLM agents simulate how a real public would deliberate? For such simulations to be meaningful, agents must reflect the population's opinions, and their views must be shaped by what others say during discussion. We evaluate these requirements across six LLMs using national surveys, controlled deliberation experiments, and a real deliberative poll. Comparing census-grounded Korean personas against national surveys, we find that agents often produce overly concentrated opinions and fail to reliably reproduce demographic differences. During simulated deliberation, agents exchange arguments, respond to one another, and frequently change positions. Yet similar changes occur even when agents cannot see one another's contributions, while simply restating their starting positions sharply reduces movement. We further test whether these limitations persist in a real-world setting, using agents constructed from actual respondents in the 2017 Shin-Kori deliberative poll. Even with real respondent profiles, agents fail to reproduce the panel's initial opinion distribution or how its opinions change across survey waves. Our findings show that generating deliberative discussions, representing public opinion, and reproducing interaction-driven opinion change are distinct capabilities. These results suggest a different potential role for LLM deliberation: surfacing arguments and perspectives, rather than simulating a real public.

翻译：暂无翻译