Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Large Language Models are often politically extreme, usually ideologically inconsistent, and persuasive even in informational contexts

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.04171 v1 pith:AS4Z6V2K submitted 2025-05-07 cs.CY cs.CL

classification cs.CYcs.CL
keywords llmspoliticalmodelsvotersbecomebiaseschatbotcontexts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are a transformational technology, fundamentally changing how people obtain information and interact with the world. As people become increasingly reliant on them for an enormous variety of tasks, a body of academic research has developed to examine these models for inherent biases, especially political biases, often finding them small. We challenge this prevailing wisdom. First, by comparing 31 LLMs to legislators, judges, and a nationally representative sample of U.S. voters, we show that LLMs' apparently small overall partisan preference is the net result of offsetting extreme views on specific topics, much like moderate voters. Second, in a randomized experiment, we show that LLMs can promulgate their preferences into political persuasiveness even in information-seeking contexts: voters randomized to discuss political issues with an LLM chatbot are as much as 5 percentage points more likely to express the same preferences as that chatbot. Contrary to expectations, these persuasive effects are not moderated by familiarity with LLMs, news consumption, or interest in politics. LLMs, especially those controlled by private companies or governments, may become a powerful and targeted vector for political influence.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Progressive in Principle, Centrist in Practice: LLM Political Bias Is Instrument-Dependent

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    LLMs that look left-of-center on abstract political questionnaires align with centrist parties and often vote no when asked to decide real Swiss referenda, with large language-dependent variation.

  2. Auditing Alignment Controllability in LLMs via Political Axes

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On a 63,700-response Political Compass stress test of seven frontier LLMs, system-prompt framing dominates model identity, and steerability needs dispersion, symmetry, saturation, and refusal-floor metrics.

  3. When Compression Becomes an Attack Surface: Black-Box Attacks on Prompt-Compressed LLM Agents

    cs.CR 2025-10 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper claims prompt compression is a new attack surface, but the abstract's COMA attack never appears in the body and the body's SoftCom requires white-box access.

  4. When Models Refuse: Political Steerability and Feature Richness as Measures of Ideological Depth

    cs.CL 2025-08 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Comparing two open LLMs, the paper claims that greater internal political feature richness predicts steerability and that refusals on benign prompts reflect capability deficits, but the causal evidence is missing.

Pith tools