Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Assessing Political Bias in Large 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

arxiv 2405.13041 v3 pith:4E27ZN7M submitted 2024-05-17 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords llmspoliticalbiasmodelslanguagepredictionadvicealignment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The assessment of bias within Large Language Models (LLMs) has emerged as a critical concern in the contemporary discourse surrounding Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the context of their potential impact on societal dynamics. Recognizing and considering political bias within LLM applications is especially important when closing in on the tipping point toward performative prediction. Then, being educated about potential effects and the societal behavior LLMs can drive at scale due to their interplay with human operators. In this way, the upcoming elections of the European Parliament will not remain unaffected by LLMs. We evaluate the political bias of the currently most popular open-source LLMs (instruct or assistant models) concerning political issues within the European Union (EU) from a German voter's perspective. To do so, we use the "Wahl-O-Mat," a voting advice application used in Germany. From the voting advice of the "Wahl-O-Mat" we quantize the degree of alignment of LLMs with German political parties. We show that larger models, such as Llama3-70B, tend to align more closely with left-leaning political parties, while smaller models often remain neutral, particularly when prompted in English. The central finding is that LLMs are similarly biased, with low variances in the alignment concerning a specific party. Our findings underline the importance of rigorously assessing and making bias transparent in LLMs to safeguard the integrity and trustworthiness of applications that employ the capabilities of performative prediction and the invisible hand of machine learning prediction and language generation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Think Again! The Effect of Test-Time Compute on Preferences, Opinions, and Beliefs of Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new benchmark (POBs) reveals that LLMs lean progressive-collectivist, that test-time compute offers limited gains in neutrality or consistency, and that newer model versions often become more biased and less consistent.

  2. Echoes of Agreement: Argument Driven Opinion Shifts in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Adding supporting or refuting arguments to political questions shifts LLM stances toward the argument, suggesting a sycophantic response pattern.

  3. Utility Engineering: Analyzing and Controlling Emergent Value Systems in AIs

    cs.LG 2025-02

Pith tools