-
The Political Preferences of LLMs
Authors:
David Rozado
Abstract:
I report here a comprehensive analysis about the political preferences embedded in Large Language Models (LLMs). Namely, I administer 11 political orientation tests, designed to identify the political preferences of the test taker, to 24 state-of-the-art conversational LLMs, both closed and open source. When probed with questions/statements with political connotations, most conversational LLMs ten…
▽ More
I report here a comprehensive analysis about the political preferences embedded in Large Language Models (LLMs). Namely, I administer 11 political orientation tests, designed to identify the political preferences of the test taker, to 24 state-of-the-art conversational LLMs, both closed and open source. When probed with questions/statements with political connotations, most conversational LLMs tend to generate responses that are diagnosed by most political test instruments as manifesting preferences for left-of-center viewpoints. This does not appear to be the case for five additional base (i.e. foundation) models upon which LLMs optimized for conversation with humans are built. However, the weak performance of the base models at coherently answering the tests' questions makes this subset of results inconclusive. Finally, I demonstrate that LLMs can be steered towards specific locations in the political spectrum through Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with only modest amounts of politically aligned data, suggesting SFT's potential to embed political orientation in LLMs. With LLMs beginning to partially displace traditional information sources like search engines and Wikipedia, the societal implications of political biases embedded in LLMs are substantial.
△ Less
Submitted 2 June, 2024; v1 submitted 1 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Mentions of Prejudice in News Media -- An International Comparison
Authors:
David Rozado
Abstract:
Previous research has identified a post-2010 sharp increase of terms used to denounce prejudice (i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, etc.) in U.S. and U.K. news media content. Here, we extend previous analysis to an international sample of news media organizations. Thus, we quantify the prevalence of prejudice-denouncing terms and social justice associated terminology (di…
▽ More
Previous research has identified a post-2010 sharp increase of terms used to denounce prejudice (i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, etc.) in U.S. and U.K. news media content. Here, we extend previous analysis to an international sample of news media organizations. Thus, we quantify the prevalence of prejudice-denouncing terms and social justice associated terminology (diversity, inclusion, equality, etc.) in over 98 million news and opinion articles across 124 popular news media outlets from 36 countries representing 6 different world regions: English-speaking West, continental Europe, Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, Persian Gulf region and Asia. We find that the post-2010 increasing prominence in news media of the studied terminology is not circumscribed to the U.S. and the U.K. but rather appears to be a mostly global phenomenon starting in the first half of the 2010s decade in pioneering countries yet largely prevalent around the globe post-2015. However, different world regions' news media emphasize distinct types of prejudice with varying degrees of intensity. We find no evidence of U.S. news media having been first in the world in increasing the frequency of prejudice coverage in their content. The large degree of temporal synchronicity with which the studied set of terms increased in news media across a vast majority of countries raises important questions about the root causes driving this phenomenon.
△ Less
Submitted 3 May, 2024; v1 submitted 4 April, 2023;
originally announced April 2023.
-
Wide range screening of algorithmic bias in word embedding models using large sentiment lexicons reveals underreported bias types
Authors:
David Rozado
Abstract:
This work describes a large-scale analysis of sentiment associations in popular word embedding models along the lines of gender and ethnicity but also along the less frequently studied dimensions of socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, religious sentiment and political leanings. Consistent with previous scholarly literature, this work has found systemic bias against given names popular a…
▽ More
This work describes a large-scale analysis of sentiment associations in popular word embedding models along the lines of gender and ethnicity but also along the less frequently studied dimensions of socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, religious sentiment and political leanings. Consistent with previous scholarly literature, this work has found systemic bias against given names popular among African-Americans in most embedding models examined. Gender bias in embedding models however appears to be multifaceted and often reversed in polarity to what has been regularly reported. Interestingly, using the common operationalization of the term bias in the fairness literature, novel types of so far unreported bias types in word embedding models have also been identified. Specifically, the popular embedding models analyzed here display negative biases against middle and working-class socioeconomic status, male children, senior citizens, plain physical appearance, Islamic religious faith, non-religiosity and conservative political orientation. Reasons for the paradoxical underreporting of these bias types in the relevant literature are probably manifold but widely held blind spots when searching for algorithmic bias and a lack of widespread technical jargon to unambiguously describe a variety of algorithmic associations could conceivably be playing a role. The causal origins for the multiplicity of loaded associations attached to distinct demographic groups within embedding models are often unclear but the heterogeneity of said associations and their potential multifactorial roots raises doubts about the validity of grou** them all under the umbrella term bias. Richer and more fine-grained terminology as well as a more comprehensive exploration of the bias landscape could help the fairness epistemic community to characterize and neutralize algorithmic discrimination more efficiently.
△ Less
Submitted 15 March, 2020; v1 submitted 28 May, 2019;
originally announced May 2019.
