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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2024-10-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-76395-w
Citations
5
Primary Topic
China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
11.16

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Yinxian Zhang, Di Zhou
5 citations
Scientific Reports
China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
11.16
article

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

Yinxian Zhang, Di Zhou
article en
5 citations

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.

Scientific ReportsVol. 14(1)
Queens College, CUNY (US), CUNY School of Law (US), New York University (US)
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, City University of New York, Queens College, City University of New York
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
11.16
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.