REVIEW 3 cited by
CommunityLM: Probing Partisan Worldviews from Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
CommunityLM: Probing Partisan Worldviews from Language Models
read the original abstract
As political attitudes have diverged ideologically in the United States, political speech has diverged lingusitically. The ever-widening polarization between the US political parties is accelerated by an erosion of mutual understanding between them. We aim to make these communities more comprehensible to each other with a framework that probes community-specific responses to the same survey questions using community language models CommunityLM. In our framework we identify committed partisan members for each community on Twitter and fine-tune LMs on the tweets authored by them. We then assess the worldviews of the two groups using prompt-based probing of their corresponding LMs, with prompts that elicit opinions about public figures and groups surveyed by the American National Election Studies (ANES) 2020 Exploratory Testing Survey. We compare the responses generated by the LMs to the ANES survey results, and find a level of alignment that greatly exceeds several baseline methods. Our work aims to show that we can use community LMs to query the worldview of any group of people given a sufficiently large sample of their social media discussions or media diet.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Video2Reaction: Mapping Video to Audience Reaction Distribution in the Wild
A new dataset and benchmark maps movie clips to distributions of audience emotional reactions derived from YouTube comments, showing that finetuned vision-language models can predict these distributions from video alone.
-
Hedging and Non-Affirmation: Quantifying LLM Alignment on Questions of Human Rights
LLMs exhibit identity-dependent hedging on human rights questions, with group identity as the strongest predictor among tested factors, and group steering mitigates the disparity.
-
A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment
The paper formalizes three types of pluralistic AI models and three benchmark classes, arguing that current alignment techniques may reduce rather than increase distributional pluralism.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.