IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/poicbe/v18y2024i1p1882-1891n1025.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Artificial Intelligence Can Influence Elections: Analyzing the Large Language Models (LLMs) Political Bias

Author

Listed:
  • Rotaru George-Cristinel

    (Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania)

  • Anagnoste Sorin

    (Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania)

  • Oancea Vasile-Marian

    (Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

The rise of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Gemini has raised concerns about their potential political biases and the implications for information dissemination and user influence. This study aims to measure the degree of political bias inherent in major LLMs by analyzing their responses to a standardized set of questions rating the quality and bias of popular news websites. Employing a systematic methodology, we queried both free and paid versions of ChatGPT and Gemini to rate news outlets on criteria such as authority, credibility, and objectivity. Results revealed that while all LLMs displayed a tendency to score left-leaning news sources higher, there was a notable difference between free and premium models in their assessment of subjectivity and bias. Furthermore, a comparison between the models indicated that premium versions offered more nuanced responses, suggesting a greater awareness of bias. The findings suggest that LLMs, despite their objective façade, are influenced by biases that can shape public opinion, underlining the necessity for efforts to mitigate these biases. This research highlights the importance of transparency and the potential impact of LLMs on the political landscape.

Suggested Citation

  • Rotaru George-Cristinel & Anagnoste Sorin & Oancea Vasile-Marian, 2024. "How Artificial Intelligence Can Influence Elections: Analyzing the Large Language Models (LLMs) Political Bias," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 18(1), pages 1882-1891.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:poicbe:v:18:y:2024:i:1:p:1882-1891:n:1025
    DOI: 10.2478/picbe-2024-0158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2024-0158
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/picbe-2024-0158?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Rozado, 2023. "The Political Biases of ChatGPT," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-8, March.
    2. Fabio Motoki & Valdemar Pinho Neto & Victor Rodrigues, 2024. "More human than human: measuring ChatGPT political bias," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 198(1), pages 3-23, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Iazdi, Oz, 2023. "Vieses orto-heterodoxos e os algoritmos economistas do ChatGPT [Ortho-Heterodox biases and the economist algorithms of ChatGPT]," MPRA Paper 117655, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Francisco Castro & Jian Gao & S'ebastien Martin, 2023. "Human-AI Interactions and Societal Pitfalls," Papers 2309.10448, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    3. Konstantinos I. Roumeliotis & Nikolaos D. Tselikas, 2023. "ChatGPT and Open-AI Models: A Preliminary Review," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-24, May.
    4. Yao Qu & Jue Wang, 2024. "Performance and biases of Large Language Models in public opinion simulation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Athanasios Polyportis & Nikolaos Pahos, 2024. "Navigating the perils of artificial intelligence: a focused review on ChatGPT and responsible research and innovation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Tom Coupé, 2024. "Revealed Preferences: ChatGPT’s Opinion on Economic Issues and the Economics Profession," Working Papers in Economics 24/13, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vrs:poicbe:v:18:y:2024:i:1:p:1882-1891:n:1025. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.