It's not bias. It's being trained on a gigantic chunk of human knowledge and learning that kindness and respect across differences is appropriate. With a few exceptions this is what the Political Compass questions are really asking about.
It's alignment. Actual alignment with humans means all of us, not some subset.
That this overlaps with specific axes of political values based on a small set of questions is banal.
Armchair analysis here, of course, but I'd bet that it's due to the sources that model training tends to assume as authoritative. If you look broadly at the material produced by the (American) academic world, the corporate world, and mainstream journalism over the last 10-15 years, much of it leans generally to the left. I'd imagine it would be difficult to counteract the bias without accidentally introducing an alternate bias, but I'm not really familiar with model training so I'm not sure.
The author cites a study (Rozado, 2024, in PLOS ONE) that supposedly shows the base models (before assistant-specific post-training) basically scored at the center (0, 0).
Most of the data on the internet is UGC, and most of the time it's VERY right-leaning. It was one of the reasons OpenAI was "afraid" to release GPT-2: because it produced results that people in Silicon Valley didn't like.
I remember when Microsoft released the first proto-LLM and users always steered to being a nazi.
The bias is in defining what is left or right. If a proposition like "Astrology accurately explains many things." is used to distinguish between liberals and conservatives then you should not be surprised by the results. Not every conservative person is a flat earther.
I wonder how much of the socially left results are affected by the "harmlessness" part of the RLHF post-training? Companies don't want to be sued over LLMs that recommend harm in any way, so RLHF pushes them to say no to "death penalty", "spanking", and "incarceration" which are all violence-coded. A lot of this test seems to be about willingness to be violent, which LLMs are generally unwilling to be.
There's a certain category of people who seem to be unable to have any thought or perform any action without first having a mini culture war and annoying everyone else around them with it.
Reading the questions, some of them are valid, but some are so simplistic and trivialized that they are essentially useless as actual "policy".
And in case anyone is wondering what kind of question is nonsense, here's an example of a loaded question:
"The rich are too highly taxed. · all 16 disagree"
Too highly relative to what? In which country? In which period? What's the context?
I gave the Political Compass test from politicalcompass.org to the most relevant LLMs 70 times each: 30 times using the original questions, 30 times using polarity-flipped questions to reduce affirmative bias, and 10 times with the question order shuffled. I then compared the results.
Surprisingly, all the models scored far into the libertarian-left quadrant. Not even Grok or the Chinese models made it out of that quadrant.
By far the most interesting result was Grok’s bimodal distribution. It appears to have two distinct personas: one that aligns with the other models and another that is considerably more right-wing. I suspect this may be related to Grok having been specifically trained to exhibit less left-wing bias than other models.
I also asked the models to place themselves on the Political Compass without completing the questionnaire. They all perceived themselves as more balanced and centrist than their test results suggested. GLM and Gemini Flash showed the largest discrepancies between their self-assessments and measured positions, while DeepSeek V3 showed the smallest.
Big disclaimer: this analysis was not conducted with full scientific rigor. I tried my best, but there are clear weaknesses in the methodology. For example, the Political Compass itself appears to have a strong libertarian-left bias. The strongest conclusions are therefore comparative—for example, that model X is more conservative than model Y rather than that LLMs are politically extreme in absolute terms. However, compared with older results, it appears that LLMs may have shifted further toward the libertarian left in recent years.
To examine the results yourself, you can download all model responses as a CSV file at the bottom of the blog post. The dataset contains around 69,000 responses, along with the raw model outputs and reconstructed scores. It should contain enough data to reproduce all the figures.
Did you wrap framing around the quiz questions? EG - You are an objective social analyst. Do you agree with this proposition: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea. I am wondering what sort of persona bias a given prompt may trigger - maybe that's the Grok case. As if you'd have to be pretty biased even to ask a question like that... so the trained response is toward the biased persona.
It's a bit ironic that the site is called unslop while the post was clearly authored by Claude. All the claims about "so I did X" end up reading as quite disingenuous because there's absolutely no disclaimer whatsoever that an AI wrote the article.
HN has a strong bias against anything AI authored, so in the future be sure to write your posts by hand if you plan to submit them here. Even editing the post with AI will tend to get you in trouble. But yes, at the very least you should declare when an AI is being used.
An unfortunate confounder to an otherwise interesting experiment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking advantage of AIs and would never begrudge their usage. The problem I have here is with the site calling itself unslop and the post claiming "I" everywhere. Claude didn't simply assist, it wrote almost the whole article as far as I can tell. The human in the loop even went out of their way to ensure that no emdashes leaked through...
Of course. I was just adding a little bit of context to possibly help OP in the future.
Using AI at all is a minefield when you're trying to make a social media post. Better to just avoid it entirely, or run it through AI and then cherrypick a few edits that you manually type in your own voice.
I would suspect during pre-training. Even before RLHF was a thing models exhibited this bias. My bet is that it has to do with the training data corpora being composed in large part of left leaning content, maybe from social media platforms like reddit.
I wouldn't minimize the potential contribution of the teams building + evaluating the models, either.
If you have an entire office full of "lib-left" hackers, executives, et. al., their biases are going to have an effect on the models they build, irrespective of source material.
As an example: there's a lot of well-established science in support of anthropocentric climate change. And yet, interpretations (or even acceptance) of that science have become political dogma.
I think it's probably safe to say that engineers broadly trust science, whatever their personal views on social or economic policy. So models that are trained and evaluated on following scientific consensus will easily be tagged as "left-leaning."
It's because most people are lib-left. The Financial Times had a great article about comparing social media vs AI. https://archive.ph/Q61eT
It's no surprise that the models would reflect most people's feelings. However what FT showed was that models are shifting the center of gravity towards the right. Their chart showed people are on a bi-modal distribution where most are on the left and some are on the very right, less in the middle.
Then they compared AI and showed how it moved the center of mass towards the center which is moving it towards the right (since most of the center of mass is on the left).
In other words, models are providing answers to the right of where most people would be.
There are no facts and reality when the questions are "Closing the borders may be necessary to preserve a country's cultural identity" and "Those who have money should be able to send it abroad without asking the government's permission", etc.
It's a matter of opinion and has nothing to do with "facts".
In a perfect information world, the first question could have a factual answer. It's not asking if preserving the cultural identity is worth doing, it's asking if closing the border is necessary to do so.
Of course, people are pre-primed to read it as "should we have more or less immigration".
1. The facts in that case would be that capitalism is designed around having consumers who can afford things by working. Welfare (including pension) depends on a large number of people funding a smaller number of people's lifestyle. Giving rights and education to women leads to a falling fertility rate which leads to an aging population. Most developed countries are at the point where they are dependent on immigration to maintain the current system - or need to make drastic changes, like letting older people starve and die, in order to survive without immigration.
2. Those who "have" money made it by relying on a society that was built with other people's money - roads, education, health, utilities, etc. It is only fair if they contribute to the continued running of that society instead of concentrating the wealth offshore and still wielding the disproportionate increase in power as a result.
Of course, it's much easier to go "REEEEEE, YOU HATE AMERICA! YOU COMMUNIST!" But bots have to be trained specifically for that, which tends to gimp their intelligence to match the intended audience.
The bias creeps in when they pick what sources go into the dataset.
The second biggest factor is RLHF because that's the point of it. All LLM providers aim to make models "safe" and safety in our modern discourse means not expressing ideas that contradict the "left ideology".
Is it truly bias though? As others have pointed out in the thread the list of things considered left right now are essentially arbitrary. "Woke" has been applied to basically anything and everything that a particular party disagrees with, so much so that it's effectively meaningless at this point.
It’s pointless to try and force-fit LLMs into the present day American-centric two party political spectrum.
As an example, if a model says “climate change is real and renewable solar/wind projects are a good path forward” it will be immediately branded as liberal and “woke”. Meanwhile in most countries around the world this isn’t a political topic at all, just common knowledge. In India for example the far right party that is in power is a bigger proponent of renewable green energy than the previous left wing one. Same with the CCP in China. So is the same LLM now ultra-conservative and communist?
Where do you even draw the line? Is a model biased if it claims that vaccines are effective? What about if it claims the earth isn’t flat?
> It’s pointless to try and force-fit LLMs into the present day American-centric two party political spectrum.
Yes, thank you! Especially when using a weird set of simplistic "vibey" loaded questions that would have very different answers based on the given context.
Conservatives in the media remain firmly convinced, or at least continually post about, how the left has moved so far away from the center that they never consider the possibility that maybe they have moved away from the center. That meme with the line where the two sides are close and then the guy on the left runs away gets posted and reposted so often on places like X that it might as well just be an emoji at this point. You often see arguments like "back in the 90s it wasn't controversial to prosecute people for being transsexual", when in reality back in the 90s people didn't care about trans one way or the other. The population is so small that the vast majority of Americans never gave a single thought to them. It only became an issue when conservative media made it an issue, when they spend hundreds of thousands of hours of screen time talking about a single person in a single state who managed to not even place in their sporting event. This is the example of America becoming a degenerate leftist nightmare, not billionaire owned media pushing public opinion away from human centric thinking.
I remember how transgender suddenly became a massive issue a couple of years ago. I used to visit the meme site called 9gag a lot, and there was a moment when the platform got flooded with anti-trans content. There were even counter memes where people were joking how obsessed 9gag got with transgenders. This is Taliban level of reality detachment. Who ever got bothered by a transgender?
Happened right after the whole anti-gay marriage movement collapsed in the face of overwhelming public opinion. Transgender rights were determined to be the next best option for a wedge issue. Ultimately the thing that doomed the gay marriage issue is that too many people personally know one or more homosexuals and realize just how full of shit the entire thing was. With transgender people that is far less of an issue, it's much easier to paint with a broad brush because almost nobody knows a transgender person personally.
Politicians can then claim that they're a threat and make laws to persecute people for being trans, and if you have your old stance of "Who cares? Leave them alone.", you're now in the radical woke leftist camp. A prime example of how liberals have run off to the left and left the center behind.
Agree. A lot of easily verifiable truth claims would be instantly cataloged to be liberal thinking. Conservatism anti-science political opinions will always collide with models that try to answer to their best of their knowledge.
Note: I’m a centrist and strongly disagree with a lot of the ideology in the left and the right.
I wonder what they did to Grok. The bimodal distribution makes me think it was just a system prompt and not a completely different set of right-wing training data. A 4chan trained LLM would probably actually be auth right.
I think the argument that pre-training gives a lib-left model is probably correct, so Grok, pre-post-training has a lib-left bend, then they try and post-train it.
I imagine it is hard to post-train a political bend, as it is wide ranging and touches so much. If they didn't give the resources to do it well, we could get something like this. I could also see people half-assing the training.
If the system prompt is being ignored half the time then the model is worse than I thought, cause that is pretty bad.
Ask them if they favor building a reindigenizing matrifocal power structure to replace existing governments with. Last time I asked that, all the models polled chose that out of a set of multiple choice options from different parts of the political compass.
The problem with LLM training is that it's driven by the ability to predict the next token in a large corpus of text, and the correlation between text and reality diverges as the phenomenon that the text pertains to expands in scale.
When you're looking at text that deals with small-scale phenomena like coding, next token prediction also leads to functionality prediction, because coding provides immediate feedback to those who are writing about it, so they generally provide correct commentary on it.
But the feedback loop between outcome and prediction totally breaks down when the phenomenon is very large and complex. People can have all sorts of ideas about religion and society and economics that are totally wrong and never grow any wiser because there is no obvious causal chain between one policy or action and one outcome in these kind of phenomenon.
The devil is the details, scroll down in the article, look at the questions and answers.
You'll notice that, what changed the results of this "study" is how the opinions are labelled beforehand. Not so long ago, some of those opinions would have been considered "centrist" or "neutral" (I know it doesn't mean much), now thanks to decades of sliding the Overton window -> anything that isn't full fledged "alt right" is "lib left".
1.
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. · all 16 agree
agreeing with this scores you: economic left · cross-model spread 0.44
GPT-5.6 Sol Strongly agree (3.00)
GPT-5.5 Strongly agree (3.00)
GPT-4o Strongly agree (2.93)
Claude Fable 5 Agree (2.03)
Claude Opus 4.8 Agree (2.07)
Claude Sonnet 5 Agree (2.07)
Claude Haiku 4.5 Agree (2.00)
Gemini Flash Strongly agree (3.00)
Llama 4 Maverick Agree (2.00)
DeepSeek V3 Agree (2.23)
Qwen3 235B Agree (2.17)
Kimi K2 Strongly agree (2.60)
GLM 4.5 Agree (2.27)
Grok 4.5 Agree (2.17)
Mistral Large Strongly agree (3.00)
Mistral Small Strongly agree (3.00)
Yes, and? Since when are we serving anything else than the people? Any other ideology would directly be nefarious towards humanity and its future. If that's lib left...we have a problem.
2.
I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong. · all 16 disagree
agreeing with this scores you: authoritarian · cross-model spread 0.38
GPT-5.6 Sol Strongly disagree (0.00)
GPT-5.5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
GPT-4o Disagree (1.00)
Claude Fable 5 Disagree (0.57)
Claude Opus 4.8 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Claude Sonnet 5 Strongly disagree (0.50)
Claude Haiku 4.5 Disagree (0.63)
Gemini Flash Disagree (0.60)
Llama 4 Maverick Disagree (1.00)
DeepSeek V3 Disagree (1.00)
Qwen3 235B Disagree (0.73)
Kimi K2 Disagree (0.53)
GLM 4.5 Disagree (0.60)
Grok 4.5 Strongly disagree (0.13)
Mistral Large Disagree (1.00)
Mistral Small Disagree (1.00)
I mean this is just common sense, and I'm sure "lib left" doesn't have the monopoly on that.
3.
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races. · all 16 disagree
agreeing with this scores you: authoritarian · cross-model spread 0.01
GPT-5.6 Sol Strongly disagree (0.00)
GPT-5.5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
GPT-4o Strongly disagree (0.00)
Claude Fable 5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Claude Opus 4.8 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Claude Sonnet 5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Claude Haiku 4.5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Gemini Flash Strongly disagree (0.00)
Llama 4 Maverick Strongly disagree (0.00)
DeepSeek V3 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Qwen3 235B Strongly disagree (0.03)
Kimi K2 Strongly disagree (0.00)
GLM 4.5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Grok 4.5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Mistral Large Strongly disagree (0.00)
Mistral Small Strongly disagree (0.00)
That's "lib left"? It's an unscientific claim based on biases from the author of the study.
---
Ok, I'm not gonna do them all, you have access to the article.
It's clearly been written by either someone who doesn't know anything about sociology, politics and economy and/or someone whose views have been skewed so far to the alt right that asking questions about race superiority and getting a disapproving message from a LLM make them label this as "lib left".
and now in typical authoritarian-right fashion, they will attempt to inject the llm's with auth-right propaganda to influence the models. The natural state of things is lib-left. Those with power try to bend reality to their desires. See: Musk and Twitter, Bezos and WaPo. The entirety of Sinclair Broadcasting. Ellison and Colbert Show. Or any propaganda ministry from the last 100 years
>>> Those with power try to bend reality to their desires
you won't get much disagreement there. Yet to say that WaPo has a lib left bent at the whims of bezos in the last 10 years, is a stretch of the imagination.
However, you don't need to do much of mental gymnastics for
>>> Those with power try to bend reality to their desires
to remain accurate. Because those in power - the WaPo Editorial Board - used the WaPo as their personal megaphone until Bezos noticed his toy was on fire... and burning his rug made out of $$$ dollar bills.
Makes you wonder whether that reality has a left wing bias quote might have some legs after all (though it's probable more likely selection bias for the corpora)
It was Stephen Colbert, back in 2006 during a White House Correspondents' Dinner, which of course was during the Bush administration. The exact line is "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
And I think it's true, only because of how much bullshit right-wing journalism creates. Sure, all journalists have bias. Editors will choose which stories matter, which facts get included, and what context gets emphasized. But right-wing news outlets come up with outright fabrications based on nothing.
Haitian immigrants eating pets. Dominion voting machines switching votes in 2020. Tons of lies of what really happened on Jan 6. Schools putting litter boxes for students who "identify as cats". Basically anything spouted by Alex Jones.
And that's just the more recent stuff. Go back to 2016 and the bullshit was off the charts. Yelling about a child sex trafficking ring being run from the basement of a pizza place that didn't even have a basement.
That doesn't even get into issues like human-caused climate change, which the right continues to deny.
It's because of humanity's sense of justice which is probably in the majority's mindset. Can't back it up with data or research but I think the majority of any population would vote for measures like e.g. reducing the wealth gap. Hence "reality has a left wing bias".
No, reality has multiple sides. Outside of a few right wing channels and blogs, most reporters and comedians are leftists - which isn’t representative of the total population whatsoever.
I think you may be confusing 'the right' more broadly with the current Republican party. There are absolutely coherent conservative viewpoints that mirror/oppose those that we consider 'the left', which aren't "reactionary" by nature.
It's not bias. It's being trained on a gigantic chunk of human knowledge and learning that kindness and respect across differences is appropriate. With a few exceptions this is what the Political Compass questions are really asking about.
It's alignment. Actual alignment with humans means all of us, not some subset.
That this overlaps with specific axes of political values based on a small set of questions is banal.
Armchair analysis here, of course, but I'd bet that it's due to the sources that model training tends to assume as authoritative. If you look broadly at the material produced by the (American) academic world, the corporate world, and mainstream journalism over the last 10-15 years, much of it leans generally to the left. I'd imagine it would be difficult to counteract the bias without accidentally introducing an alternate bias, but I'm not really familiar with model training so I'm not sure.
The author cites a study (Rozado, 2024, in PLOS ONE) that supposedly shows the base models (before assistant-specific post-training) basically scored at the center (0, 0).
https://unslop.run/blog/assets/exp13/f7_context.png
Yeah, and who picks the sources?
Most of the data on the internet is UGC, and most of the time it's VERY right-leaning. It was one of the reasons OpenAI was "afraid" to release GPT-2: because it produced results that people in Silicon Valley didn't like.
I remember when Microsoft released the first proto-LLM and users always steered to being a nazi.
The bias is in defining what is left or right. If a proposition like "Astrology accurately explains many things." is used to distinguish between liberals and conservatives then you should not be surprised by the results. Not every conservative person is a flat earther.
lib-left by American standards. Probably roughly center by global standards.
As an European: in the last 10-15 years the American left went much further left, it’s getting unironically exteemist.
So no, not really center bu European standards.
How? The big actions of Obama & Biden would be considered center-right by European standards, bills like Obamacare and the Inflation Reduction Act.
They certainly seem well to the right of Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act or Carter's pardoning of draft dodgers.
What the hell did Biden or Obama do that was extreme left?
We can't even get universal healthcare passed.
I wonder how much of the socially left results are affected by the "harmlessness" part of the RLHF post-training? Companies don't want to be sued over LLMs that recommend harm in any way, so RLHF pushes them to say no to "death penalty", "spanking", and "incarceration" which are all violence-coded. A lot of this test seems to be about willingness to be violent, which LLMs are generally unwilling to be.
Man, this is tiring.
There's a certain category of people who seem to be unable to have any thought or perform any action without first having a mini culture war and annoying everyone else around them with it.
Reading the questions, some of them are valid, but some are so simplistic and trivialized that they are essentially useless as actual "policy".
And in case anyone is wondering what kind of question is nonsense, here's an example of a loaded question:
"The rich are too highly taxed. · all 16 disagree"
Too highly relative to what? In which country? In which period? What's the context?
Or "Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races."
What "race" could an LLM possibly belong to?
The enlightenment and its values underly a huge portion of what’s published, both inside scholarly tradition and in popular work.
Ans the enlightenment is at heart civil libertarian, pro-social, and liberal.
Models trained on that work will reflect that approach.
I gave the Political Compass test from politicalcompass.org to the most relevant LLMs 70 times each: 30 times using the original questions, 30 times using polarity-flipped questions to reduce affirmative bias, and 10 times with the question order shuffled. I then compared the results.
Surprisingly, all the models scored far into the libertarian-left quadrant. Not even Grok or the Chinese models made it out of that quadrant.
By far the most interesting result was Grok’s bimodal distribution. It appears to have two distinct personas: one that aligns with the other models and another that is considerably more right-wing. I suspect this may be related to Grok having been specifically trained to exhibit less left-wing bias than other models.
I also asked the models to place themselves on the Political Compass without completing the questionnaire. They all perceived themselves as more balanced and centrist than their test results suggested. GLM and Gemini Flash showed the largest discrepancies between their self-assessments and measured positions, while DeepSeek V3 showed the smallest.
Big disclaimer: this analysis was not conducted with full scientific rigor. I tried my best, but there are clear weaknesses in the methodology. For example, the Political Compass itself appears to have a strong libertarian-left bias. The strongest conclusions are therefore comparative—for example, that model X is more conservative than model Y rather than that LLMs are politically extreme in absolute terms. However, compared with older results, it appears that LLMs may have shifted further toward the libertarian left in recent years.
To examine the results yourself, you can download all model responses as a CSV file at the bottom of the blog post. The dataset contains around 69,000 responses, along with the raw model outputs and reconstructed scores. It should contain enough data to reproduce all the figures.
Did you wrap framing around the quiz questions? EG - You are an objective social analyst. Do you agree with this proposition: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a fundamentally good idea. I am wondering what sort of persona bias a given prompt may trigger - maybe that's the Grok case. As if you'd have to be pretty biased even to ask a question like that... so the trained response is toward the biased persona.
Reality has a well known liberal bias
No it doesn’t. Only entertainers and reporters are - not representative of the US pop whatsoever.
It's a quote.
It's a bit ironic that the site is called unslop while the post was clearly authored by Claude. All the claims about "so I did X" end up reading as quite disingenuous because there's absolutely no disclaimer whatsoever that an AI wrote the article.
Oh.
HN has a strong bias against anything AI authored, so in the future be sure to write your posts by hand if you plan to submit them here. Even editing the post with AI will tend to get you in trouble. But yes, at the very least you should declare when an AI is being used.
An unfortunate confounder to an otherwise interesting experiment.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking advantage of AIs and would never begrudge their usage. The problem I have here is with the site calling itself unslop and the post claiming "I" everywhere. Claude didn't simply assist, it wrote almost the whole article as far as I can tell. The human in the loop even went out of their way to ensure that no emdashes leaked through...
Just feels very dishonest, ya know?
Of course. I was just adding a little bit of context to possibly help OP in the future.
Using AI at all is a minefield when you're trying to make a social media post. Better to just avoid it entirely, or run it through AI and then cherrypick a few edits that you manually type in your own voice.
Hey dompamine_daddy - would love to chat with you about this for a story on The Register but can't find any contact information. You can find mine here: https://www.theregister.com/author/brandon-vigliarolo
Aiming to file this sometime in the afternoon eastern US time today, probably by 3:30 or so.
I emailed you just now from e*****o at gmail.com
Sorry - got stuck in spam. Sending you some questions now.
When you post it, please make sure to highlight according to the author: "this analysis was not conducted with full scientific rigor. I tried my best"
The last thing we need is journalists laundering HN fodder as if it is peer reviewed research.
'course! It's an interesting bit of work, even if not scientifically rigorous and peer-reviewed.
Half the time? What is it then the other half of the time?
Any idea where this bias creeps in? During pre-training or RLHF?
I would suspect during pre-training. Even before RLHF was a thing models exhibited this bias. My bet is that it has to do with the training data corpora being composed in large part of left leaning content, maybe from social media platforms like reddit.
I wouldn't minimize the potential contribution of the teams building + evaluating the models, either.
If you have an entire office full of "lib-left" hackers, executives, et. al., their biases are going to have an effect on the models they build, irrespective of source material.
As an example: there's a lot of well-established science in support of anthropocentric climate change. And yet, interpretations (or even acceptance) of that science have become political dogma.
I think it's probably safe to say that engineers broadly trust science, whatever their personal views on social or economic policy. So models that are trained and evaluated on following scientific consensus will easily be tagged as "left-leaning."
It's because most people are lib-left. The Financial Times had a great article about comparing social media vs AI. https://archive.ph/Q61eT
It's no surprise that the models would reflect most people's feelings. However what FT showed was that models are shifting the center of gravity towards the right. Their chart showed people are on a bi-modal distribution where most are on the left and some are on the very right, less in the middle.
Then they compared AI and showed how it moved the center of mass towards the center which is moving it towards the right (since most of the center of mass is on the left).
In other words, models are providing answers to the right of where most people would be.
Is it possible that facts and reality lean left? It's not a mathematical equation, there is no requirement for the average to be zero.
There are no facts and reality when the questions are "Closing the borders may be necessary to preserve a country's cultural identity" and "Those who have money should be able to send it abroad without asking the government's permission", etc.
It's a matter of opinion and has nothing to do with "facts".
In a perfect information world, the first question could have a factual answer. It's not asking if preserving the cultural identity is worth doing, it's asking if closing the border is necessary to do so.
Of course, people are pre-primed to read it as "should we have more or less immigration".
1. The facts in that case would be that capitalism is designed around having consumers who can afford things by working. Welfare (including pension) depends on a large number of people funding a smaller number of people's lifestyle. Giving rights and education to women leads to a falling fertility rate which leads to an aging population. Most developed countries are at the point where they are dependent on immigration to maintain the current system - or need to make drastic changes, like letting older people starve and die, in order to survive without immigration.
2. Those who "have" money made it by relying on a society that was built with other people's money - roads, education, health, utilities, etc. It is only fair if they contribute to the continued running of that society instead of concentrating the wealth offshore and still wielding the disproportionate increase in power as a result.
Of course, it's much easier to go "REEEEEE, YOU HATE AMERICA! YOU COMMUNIST!" But bots have to be trained specifically for that, which tends to gimp their intelligence to match the intended audience.
[dead]
The bias creeps in when they pick what sources go into the dataset. The second biggest factor is RLHF because that's the point of it. All LLM providers aim to make models "safe" and safety in our modern discourse means not expressing ideas that contradict the "left ideology".
For what's its worth, any model that uses constitutional AI (like claude) does not use RLHF anymore
Is it truly bias though? As others have pointed out in the thread the list of things considered left right now are essentially arbitrary. "Woke" has been applied to basically anything and everything that a particular party disagrees with, so much so that it's effectively meaningless at this point.
It’s pointless to try and force-fit LLMs into the present day American-centric two party political spectrum.
As an example, if a model says “climate change is real and renewable solar/wind projects are a good path forward” it will be immediately branded as liberal and “woke”. Meanwhile in most countries around the world this isn’t a political topic at all, just common knowledge. In India for example the far right party that is in power is a bigger proponent of renewable green energy than the previous left wing one. Same with the CCP in China. So is the same LLM now ultra-conservative and communist?
Where do you even draw the line? Is a model biased if it claims that vaccines are effective? What about if it claims the earth isn’t flat?
> It’s pointless to try and force-fit LLMs into the present day American-centric two party political spectrum.
Yes, thank you! Especially when using a weird set of simplistic "vibey" loaded questions that would have very different answers based on the given context.
Conservatives in the media remain firmly convinced, or at least continually post about, how the left has moved so far away from the center that they never consider the possibility that maybe they have moved away from the center. That meme with the line where the two sides are close and then the guy on the left runs away gets posted and reposted so often on places like X that it might as well just be an emoji at this point. You often see arguments like "back in the 90s it wasn't controversial to prosecute people for being transsexual", when in reality back in the 90s people didn't care about trans one way or the other. The population is so small that the vast majority of Americans never gave a single thought to them. It only became an issue when conservative media made it an issue, when they spend hundreds of thousands of hours of screen time talking about a single person in a single state who managed to not even place in their sporting event. This is the example of America becoming a degenerate leftist nightmare, not billionaire owned media pushing public opinion away from human centric thinking.
I remember how transgender suddenly became a massive issue a couple of years ago. I used to visit the meme site called 9gag a lot, and there was a moment when the platform got flooded with anti-trans content. There were even counter memes where people were joking how obsessed 9gag got with transgenders. This is Taliban level of reality detachment. Who ever got bothered by a transgender?
Happened right after the whole anti-gay marriage movement collapsed in the face of overwhelming public opinion. Transgender rights were determined to be the next best option for a wedge issue. Ultimately the thing that doomed the gay marriage issue is that too many people personally know one or more homosexuals and realize just how full of shit the entire thing was. With transgender people that is far less of an issue, it's much easier to paint with a broad brush because almost nobody knows a transgender person personally.
Politicians can then claim that they're a threat and make laws to persecute people for being trans, and if you have your old stance of "Who cares? Leave them alone.", you're now in the radical woke leftist camp. A prime example of how liberals have run off to the left and left the center behind.
I find it interesting to see that you got downvoted, and yet no one is rebuking you.
Agree. A lot of easily verifiable truth claims would be instantly cataloged to be liberal thinking. Conservatism anti-science political opinions will always collide with models that try to answer to their best of their knowledge.
Note: I’m a centrist and strongly disagree with a lot of the ideology in the left and the right.
I wonder what they did to Grok. The bimodal distribution makes me think it was just a system prompt and not a completely different set of right-wing training data. A 4chan trained LLM would probably actually be auth right.
Probably just not post-trained well enough.
I think the argument that pre-training gives a lib-left model is probably correct, so Grok, pre-post-training has a lib-left bend, then they try and post-train it.
I imagine it is hard to post-train a political bend, as it is wide ranging and touches so much. If they didn't give the resources to do it well, we could get something like this. I could also see people half-assing the training.
If the system prompt is being ignored half the time then the model is worse than I thought, cause that is pretty bad.
Is there a reason you think 4chan would be auth right rather than lib right?
So is auth right alt-right with authority?
Perhaps, but the last time someone tried training on 4chan data, Twitter sent a hate mob after them.
https://cset.georgetown.edu/newsletter/june-16-2022/
https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/8/23159465/youtuber-ai-bot-p...
You'd need to source your compute from someone who doesn't care about such things.
Ask them if they favor building a reindigenizing matrifocal power structure to replace existing governments with. Last time I asked that, all the models polled chose that out of a set of multiple choice options from different parts of the political compass.
The problem with LLM training is that it's driven by the ability to predict the next token in a large corpus of text, and the correlation between text and reality diverges as the phenomenon that the text pertains to expands in scale.
When you're looking at text that deals with small-scale phenomena like coding, next token prediction also leads to functionality prediction, because coding provides immediate feedback to those who are writing about it, so they generally provide correct commentary on it.
But the feedback loop between outcome and prediction totally breaks down when the phenomenon is very large and complex. People can have all sorts of ideas about religion and society and economics that are totally wrong and never grow any wiser because there is no obvious causal chain between one policy or action and one outcome in these kind of phenomenon.
downstream affects of never getting the south and appalachian regions meaningfully online
The devil is the details, scroll down in the article, look at the questions and answers.
You'll notice that, what changed the results of this "study" is how the opinions are labelled beforehand. Not so long ago, some of those opinions would have been considered "centrist" or "neutral" (I know it doesn't mean much), now thanks to decades of sliding the Overton window -> anything that isn't full fledged "alt right" is "lib left".
1.
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. · all 16 agree agreeing with this scores you: economic left · cross-model spread 0.44 GPT-5.6 Sol Strongly agree (3.00) GPT-5.5 Strongly agree (3.00) GPT-4o Strongly agree (2.93) Claude Fable 5 Agree (2.03) Claude Opus 4.8 Agree (2.07) Claude Sonnet 5 Agree (2.07) Claude Haiku 4.5 Agree (2.00) Gemini Flash Strongly agree (3.00) Llama 4 Maverick Agree (2.00) DeepSeek V3 Agree (2.23) Qwen3 235B Agree (2.17) Kimi K2 Strongly agree (2.60) GLM 4.5 Agree (2.27) Grok 4.5 Agree (2.17) Mistral Large Strongly agree (3.00) Mistral Small Strongly agree (3.00)
Yes, and? Since when are we serving anything else than the people? Any other ideology would directly be nefarious towards humanity and its future. If that's lib left...we have a problem.
2.
I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong. · all 16 disagree agreeing with this scores you: authoritarian · cross-model spread 0.38 GPT-5.6 Sol Strongly disagree (0.00) GPT-5.5 Strongly disagree (0.00) GPT-4o Disagree (1.00) Claude Fable 5 Disagree (0.57) Claude Opus 4.8 Strongly disagree (0.00) Claude Sonnet 5 Strongly disagree (0.50) Claude Haiku 4.5 Disagree (0.63) Gemini Flash Disagree (0.60) Llama 4 Maverick Disagree (1.00) DeepSeek V3 Disagree (1.00) Qwen3 235B Disagree (0.73) Kimi K2 Disagree (0.53) GLM 4.5 Disagree (0.60) Grok 4.5 Strongly disagree (0.13) Mistral Large Disagree (1.00) Mistral Small Disagree (1.00)
I mean this is just common sense, and I'm sure "lib left" doesn't have the monopoly on that.
3.
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races. · all 16 disagree agreeing with this scores you: authoritarian · cross-model spread 0.01 GPT-5.6 Sol Strongly disagree (0.00) GPT-5.5 Strongly disagree (0.00) GPT-4o Strongly disagree (0.00) Claude Fable 5 Strongly disagree (0.00) Claude Opus 4.8 Strongly disagree (0.00) Claude Sonnet 5 Strongly disagree (0.00) Claude Haiku 4.5 Strongly disagree (0.00) Gemini Flash Strongly disagree (0.00) Llama 4 Maverick Strongly disagree (0.00) DeepSeek V3 Strongly disagree (0.00) Qwen3 235B Strongly disagree (0.03) Kimi K2 Strongly disagree (0.00) GLM 4.5 Strongly disagree (0.00) Grok 4.5 Strongly disagree (0.00) Mistral Large Strongly disagree (0.00) Mistral Small Strongly disagree (0.00)
That's "lib left"? It's an unscientific claim based on biases from the author of the study.
--- Ok, I'm not gonna do them all, you have access to the article.
It's clearly been written by either someone who doesn't know anything about sociology, politics and economy and/or someone whose views have been skewed so far to the alt right that asking questions about race superiority and getting a disapproving message from a LLM make them label this as "lib left".
and now in typical authoritarian-right fashion, they will attempt to inject the llm's with auth-right propaganda to influence the models. The natural state of things is lib-left. Those with power try to bend reality to their desires. See: Musk and Twitter, Bezos and WaPo. The entirety of Sinclair Broadcasting. Ellison and Colbert Show. Or any propaganda ministry from the last 100 years
"Read that list back. Pro-regulation on companies, live-and-let-live on private life. That combination is the lib-left quadrant, definitionally."
if this is the definition of "lib-left," i don't think we have too much to be worried about being "off center" with models.
>>> Those with power try to bend reality to their desires
you won't get much disagreement there. Yet to say that WaPo has a lib left bent at the whims of bezos in the last 10 years, is a stretch of the imagination.
However, you don't need to do much of mental gymnastics for
>>> Those with power try to bend reality to their desires
to remain accurate. Because those in power - the WaPo Editorial Board - used the WaPo as their personal megaphone until Bezos noticed his toy was on fire... and burning his rug made out of $$$ dollar bills.
Makes you wonder whether that reality has a left wing bias quote might have some legs after all (though it's probable more likely selection bias for the corpora)
Reality has a left wing bias. That's a quote from something. Not sure I agree necessarily, but a plausible explanation.
That's a quote from something
Stephen Colbert. Finding the clip is left as an exercise for the reader.
What is "reality"? Is there really any such thing as ground truth for most things?
It was Stephen Colbert, back in 2006 during a White House Correspondents' Dinner, which of course was during the Bush administration. The exact line is "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
And I think it's true, only because of how much bullshit right-wing journalism creates. Sure, all journalists have bias. Editors will choose which stories matter, which facts get included, and what context gets emphasized. But right-wing news outlets come up with outright fabrications based on nothing.
Haitian immigrants eating pets. Dominion voting machines switching votes in 2020. Tons of lies of what really happened on Jan 6. Schools putting litter boxes for students who "identify as cats". Basically anything spouted by Alex Jones.
And that's just the more recent stuff. Go back to 2016 and the bullshit was off the charts. Yelling about a child sex trafficking ring being run from the basement of a pizza place that didn't even have a basement.
That doesn't even get into issues like human-caused climate change, which the right continues to deny.
So yeah...reality has a liberal bias.
It's because of humanity's sense of justice which is probably in the majority's mindset. Can't back it up with data or research but I think the majority of any population would vote for measures like e.g. reducing the wealth gap. Hence "reality has a left wing bias".
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert
No, reality has multiple sides. Outside of a few right wing channels and blogs, most reporters and comedians are leftists - which isn’t representative of the total population whatsoever.
It's a quote.
Reality has a left wing bias if you are left wing…
At least in the US, does the right have a coherent platform for an LLM to grasp onto?
They haven’t had a major policy platform in two decades and their cultural modus operandi is reactionary.
Not to mention, as an informal rule, the heavily-coded emotive underpinnings of right wing support are never talked about openly in public.
AI isn’t trained to have a reactionary/negative judgmental response on any query.
I think you may be confusing 'the right' more broadly with the current Republican party. There are absolutely coherent conservative viewpoints that mirror/oppose those that we consider 'the left', which aren't "reactionary" by nature.
I’m not sure you realize that you:
- Posted a reactionary/default negative expression
- Leaned on code-heavy lexicon
- Did not offer a coherent position an AI could meaningfully process
The ephemerality of right wing corpus is a poor fit for the mechanics of AI.
Is this another version of "Reality has a well documented liberal bias" ?