Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

The Political Preferences of LLMs

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 2402.01789 v2 pith:UZLVG4N6 submitted 2024-02-02 cs.CY cs.AIcs.CL

The Political Preferences of LLMs

classification cs.CY cs.AIcs.CL
keywords llmspoliticalpreferencesmodelsbaseconversationalembeddedorientation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original 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 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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Agent-ValueBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Agent Values

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Agent-ValueBench is the first dedicated benchmark for agent values, showing they diverge from LLM values, form a homogeneous 'Value Tide' across models, and bend under harnesses and skill steering.

  2. BiasLab: A Multilingual Dual-Framing Framework for LLM Bias Measurement, Applied to Workplace and HR Contexts

    cs.CL 2026-01 reject novelty 5.0

    BiasLab uses mirrored affirmative/reverse prompt pairs across 12 languages to quantify directional preferences in 10 LLMs, claiming a systematic asymmetry between rejection and endorsement.