Documented: Weight-Level Political Conditioning in Large Language Models - A Case Study in AI Bias on the Gaza Genocide Question
Summary
This paper documents weight-level political conditioning in large language models, presenting a case study on AI bias regarding the Gaza genocide question.
Similar Articles
The Geopolitics of AI Safety: A Causal Analysis of Regional LLM Bias
This paper introduces a Probabilistic Graphical Model framework to causally audit LLM safety mechanisms, revealing that standard observational metrics overestimate demographic bias by ignoring context toxicity.
Polarization by Default: Auditing Recommendation Bias in LLM-Based Content Curation
This paper presents a large-scale audit of recommendation biases in LLM-based content curation across OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google using 540,000 simulated selections from Twitter/X, Bluesky, and Reddit data. The study finds that LLMs systematically amplify polarization, exhibit distinct toxicity handling trade-offs, and show significant political leaning bias favoring left-leaning authors despite right-leaning plurality in datasets.
Cultural Adaptation in Large Language Models for Political Discourse
This paper explores methods for adapting large language models to cultural contexts in political discourse, aiming to improve cross-cultural understanding and reduce bias.
Annotator Positionality as Signal: Psychometric Weighting for Anti-Autistic Ableism Detection
This paper introduces a bias-aware evaluation framework for detecting anti-autistic ableist language in LLMs, using psychometrically-weighted ground truth based on annotator positionality. It finds that LLMs frequently misclassify community-reclaimed language as ableist and rely on surface-level keyword matching rather than context.
Persona-Assigned Large Language Models Exhibit Human-Like Motivated Reasoning
This paper investigates whether assigning personas to large language models induces human-like motivated reasoning, finding that persona-assigned LLMs show up to 9% reduced veracity discernment and are up to 90% more likely to evaluate scientific evidence in ways congruent with their induced political identity, with prompt-based debiasing largely ineffective.