ArticleScientific reports2024
Political biases and inconsistencies in bilingual GPT models-the cases of the U.S. and China.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.