Everyone thinks AI is biased, but it doesn’t have to be
Also: everyone's the enemy now, and unlikely alliances in Montana — BCB #149
Are AI models politically biased? It’s a difficult question – what does neutral even mean here? – but new research by the Polarization Research Lab shows that democrats, republicans, and independents all agree that essentially all large language models lean to the left.
This was tested by asking over 10,000 people to rate the answers from 24 models on 30 different politically loaded topics (e.g. gun control, abortion, affirmative action, climate policy). As you might expect, Republicans and independents perceive these models to be further left than Democrats, but even Democrats say the answers are left-leaning. This corroborates other kinds of tests that also show a left bias for these models.
It’s hard to say whether a particular response to a controversial question is objectively left or right – this depends on cultural associations as much as anything else — but there is a remarkably consistent signal here.
However, when the model is told to be “neutral,” everyone likes the answers better:
Democrats and Republicans both see neutral responses as higher quality than responses that are aligned with their own political view.
When the LLMs were prompted to produce “neutral” answers, they used more cautious and equivocating language (“balancing”, “careful”, “complex”, “consideration”, “sides”, “potentially”), suggesting that they’re doing exactly what we’ve long advised for better conflict: complicating the narrative.
This study shows both that people on all sides see current models as left-ish, and that they react positively to more nuanced and perceptually neutral responses. These results track with more general research into how people feel about bias. Polling has shown that audiences worldwide still say they favor “impartiality” and “presenting both sides” (even when journalists don’t).
We’ve written before about what politically neutral AI could look like and why it’s important – conflicts go a lot smoother when there are at least some information sources that everyone trusts. It’s good news that people like such models, because it suggests there’s an economic case for neutrality that will allow AI labs to avoid audience capture.
Everyone’s the enemy now
BCB favorite Amanda Ripley has long written about how conflict sucks everyone in. In her latest article she points out that with Trump in power, a new list of people are being blamed for the country’s problems – but those now out of power haven’t stopped blaming the previous groups.
It is sad to watch as we perpetuate our own suffering, identifying new enemies all the time. The list now includes journalists, police officers, judges, the FBI, all Democrats, all Republicans, Disney, Target, federal workers, trans people, teachers, academics, Tesla owners, black people, white people, Jews, Palestinians, immigrants and…well, you get the idea. Who will be next?
This absurdity will stop only when we resist it. She gives five strategies for how: Talk about the understory, Decline to take the bait, Surprise your enemy (in a good way), Limit your news consumption, and most of all: Build. Create the institutions you want to see in the world.
For more, there’s an upcoming webinar:
Join myself and Good Conflict co-founder Hélène Biandudi Hofer for a free, public webinar on how to live with fear and uncertainty (of all kinds) on June 12 from 12:30-1:30 pm ET (9:30-10:30 am PT). We’ll be joined by our special guest, Prof. Kate Sweeny, who studies uncertainty and worry. Register here.
Unlikely Alliances in the Montana Senate
Cross party collaboration has all but disappeared in Congress over the last half century, but there are still a few politicians who are meaningfully engaged in cross-party collaboration.
A group of Republican state senators in Montana, called “the Nine,” have attracted significant attention by siding with the chamber’s 18 Democrats at the top of the year, creating a 27-person majority that has effectively flipped party control. This has led to the passage of legislation that reauthorizes a Medicaid expansion and establishes a child tax credit, and prevented controversial bills like one that would have made state judicial elections more partisan.
“The Nine” have said that the reason they’re voting across party lines is because they care more about passing useful policies than hewing strictly to Republican ideology. They want to represent their constituents even if it comes at the cost of abiding by party leadership. As one first-term member, Gayle Lammers, told the New York Times,
I always looked at politics when I was younger and you see people work across the aisle…I know we’re in this new age where division is so hardcore, but why can’t we get back to where any reasonable legislation is reasonable legislation? If it’s good for Montana, if it’s good for your district, why not consider it?
Of course, their work hasn’t been without obstacles. Members of their own party have spoken out against the Nine on social media and even “said the Nine would no longer be considered Republicans or receive funding from the state party because of ‘the damage they have exacted on the Montana Senate.’”
Yet these defectors remain staunchly conservative, and not just in name. They all support Trump and continue to side with other members of their party on hot-button bills like those restricting trans people’s use of public restrooms. The difference is that they’re focused on passing legislation that their constituents support and will benefit from before anything else. “Country over party” indeed.
Quote of the Week
Now AI will make creating the perfect rage bait as easy as writing a sentence. If you want to hate a particular type of person, you’ll be provided with an endless source of content to practice the exact type of hatred you’re prone to.
But as with all things, the defense against depravity is also what nourishes us and our society: replace your eagerness to hate with the effort to see common humanity.
It’s never been a better time to reject the immature delusion that hatred is anything but weakness.