Scholarlink

<p>Large language models (LLMs) already play an influential role in how humans access information. However, their behavior varies depending on their design, training, and use. We prompt a diverse panel of 19 popular LLMs to describe 3,991 prominent persons with political relevance, and then judge how positively they portray each person. When comparing these assessments, we find disparities in ideological positions between LLMs across different geopolitical regions (Arabic countries, China, Russia, and Western countries), and across different languages (the United Nations’ six official languages). Moreover, among only models from the United States, we find significant normative differences related to progressive values. Among Chinese models, we characterize division between internationally- and domestically-focused models. Our results suggest that the ideological stance of an LLM reflects the worldview of its creators. This poses the risk of political instrumentalization and raises concerns around technological and regulatory efforts aiming to make LLMs ideologically ‘unbiased’.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Large language models reflect the ideology of their creators

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月7日

查看全文
  • Maarten Buyl,
  • Alexander Rogiers,
  • Sander Noels,
  • Guillaume Bied,
  • Iris Dominguez-Catena,
  • Edith Heiter,
  • Iman Johary,
  • Alexandru-Cristian Mara,
  • Raphaël Romero,
  • Jefrey Lijffijt,
  • Tijl De Bie

摘要

Large language models (LLMs) already play an influential role in how humans access information. However, their behavior varies depending on their design, training, and use. We prompt a diverse panel of 19 popular LLMs to describe 3,991 prominent persons with political relevance, and then judge how positively they portray each person. When comparing these assessments, we find disparities in ideological positions between LLMs across different geopolitical regions (Arabic countries, China, Russia, and Western countries), and across different languages (the United Nations’ six official languages). Moreover, among only models from the United States, we find significant normative differences related to progressive values. Among Chinese models, we characterize division between internationally- and domestically-focused models. Our results suggest that the ideological stance of an LLM reflects the worldview of its creators. This poses the risk of political instrumentalization and raises concerns around technological and regulatory efforts aiming to make LLMs ideologically ‘unbiased’.