Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39443652›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Political biases and inconsistencies in bilingual GPT models-the cases of the U.S. and China.

Di Zhou, Yinxian Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Di ZhouDepartment of Sociology, New York University, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Yinxian ZhangDepartment of Sociology, Queens College, City University of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, 11367, USA. yinxian.zhang@qc.cuny.edu.

Funding

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation G-1902-06590Queens College, City University of New York Research Enhancement Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing popularity of ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) has led to many studies investigating their susceptibility to mistakes and biases. However, most studies have focused on models trained exclusively on English texts. This is one of the first studies that investigates cross-language political biases and inconsistencies in LLMs, specifically GPT models. Using two languages, English and simplified Chinese, we asked GPT the same questions about political issues in the United States (U.S.) and China. We found that the bilingual models' political knowledge and attitude were significantly more inconsistent regarding political issues in China than those in the U.S. The Chinese model was the least negative toward China's problems, whereas the English model was the most critical of China. This disparity cannot be explained by GPT model robustness. Instead, it suggests that political factors such as censorship and geopolitical tensions may have influenced LLM performance. Moreover, both the Chinese and English models tended to be less critical of the issues of their "own country," represented by the language used, than of the issues of "the other country." This suggests that multilingual GPT models could develop an "in-group bias" based on their training language. We discuss the implications of our findings for information transmission in an increasingly divided world.

Indexed as

BiasCross-cultural communicationGPTLarge language models (LLMs)Politics

Identifiers

PMID39443652
PMCPMC11499644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.