A Systematic Analysis of Biases in Large Language Models
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly become indispensable tools for acquiring information and supporting human decision-making. However, ensuring that these models uphold fairness across varied contexts is critical to their safe and responsible deployment. In this study, we undertake a comprehensive examination of four widely adopted LLMs, probing their underlying biases and inclinations across the dimensions of politics, ideology, alliance, language, and gender. Through a series of carefully designed experiments, we investigate their political neutrality using news summarization, ideological biases through news stance classification, tendencies toward specific geopolitical alliances via United Nations voting patterns, language bias in the context of multilingual story completion, and gender-related affinities as revealed by responses to the World Values Survey. Results indicate that while the LLMs are aligned to be neutral and impartial, they still show biases and affinities of different types.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Synthetic Sources?: Auditing Generative Search Engine Citations for Evidence of AI-Generated Sources
Audit of ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini and Perplexity finds ~16% of cited sources are AI-generated across 712 queries on politics, health and environment.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.