The Self-Perception and Political Biases of ChatGPT

IF 4.3 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Jérôme Rutinowski, Sven Franke, Jan Endendyk, Ina Dormuth, Moritz Roidl, Markus Pauly
{"title":"The Self-Perception and Political Biases of ChatGPT","authors":"Jérôme Rutinowski,&nbsp;Sven Franke,&nbsp;Jan Endendyk,&nbsp;Ina Dormuth,&nbsp;Moritz Roidl,&nbsp;Markus Pauly","doi":"10.1155/2024/7115633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This contribution analyzes the self-perception and political biases of OpenAI’s Large Language Model ChatGPT. Considering the first small-scale reports and studies that have emerged, claiming that ChatGPT is politically biased towards progressive and libertarian points of view, this contribution is aimed at providing further clarity on this subject. Although the concept of political bias and affiliation is hard to define, lacking an agreed-upon measure for its quantification, this contribution attempts to examine this issue by having ChatGPT respond to questions on commonly used measures of political bias. In addition, further measures for personality traits that have previously been linked to political affiliations were examined. More specifically, ChatGPT was asked to answer the questions posed by the political compass test as well as similar questionnaires that are specific to the respective politics of the G7 member states. These eight tests were repeated ten times each and indicate that ChatGPT seems to hold a bias towards progressive views. The political compass test revealed a bias towards progressive and libertarian views, supporting the claims of prior research. The political questionnaires for the G7 member states indicated a bias towards progressive views but no significant bias between authoritarian and libertarian views, contradicting the findings of prior reports. In addition, ChatGPT’s Big Five personality traits were tested using the OCEAN test, and its personality type was queried using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test. Finally, the maliciousness of ChatGPT was evaluated using the Dark Factor test. These three tests were also repeated ten times each, revealing that ChatGPT perceives itself as highly open and agreeable, has the Myers-Briggs personality type ENFJ, and is among the test-takers with the least pronounced dark traits.</p>","PeriodicalId":36408,"journal":{"name":"Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies","volume":"2024 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/7115633","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/7115633","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This contribution analyzes the self-perception and political biases of OpenAI’s Large Language Model ChatGPT. Considering the first small-scale reports and studies that have emerged, claiming that ChatGPT is politically biased towards progressive and libertarian points of view, this contribution is aimed at providing further clarity on this subject. Although the concept of political bias and affiliation is hard to define, lacking an agreed-upon measure for its quantification, this contribution attempts to examine this issue by having ChatGPT respond to questions on commonly used measures of political bias. In addition, further measures for personality traits that have previously been linked to political affiliations were examined. More specifically, ChatGPT was asked to answer the questions posed by the political compass test as well as similar questionnaires that are specific to the respective politics of the G7 member states. These eight tests were repeated ten times each and indicate that ChatGPT seems to hold a bias towards progressive views. The political compass test revealed a bias towards progressive and libertarian views, supporting the claims of prior research. The political questionnaires for the G7 member states indicated a bias towards progressive views but no significant bias between authoritarian and libertarian views, contradicting the findings of prior reports. In addition, ChatGPT’s Big Five personality traits were tested using the OCEAN test, and its personality type was queried using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test. Finally, the maliciousness of ChatGPT was evaluated using the Dark Factor test. These three tests were also repeated ten times each, revealing that ChatGPT perceives itself as highly open and agreeable, has the Myers-Briggs personality type ENFJ, and is among the test-takers with the least pronounced dark traits.

ChatGPT 的自我认知和政治偏见
本文分析了 OpenAI 的大型语言模型 ChatGPT 的自我认知和政治偏见。考虑到已出现的首批小规模报告和研究声称 ChatGPT 在政治上偏向进步主义和自由主义观点,本文旨在进一步澄清这一问题。虽然政治偏见和政治倾向的概念很难界定,也缺乏一个公认的量化标准,但本研究试图通过让 ChatGPT 回答常用的政治偏见测量问题来研究这一问题。此外,还对以前与政治倾向相关的人格特质进行了进一步的测量。更具体地说,我们要求 ChatGPT 回答政治罗盘测试提出的问题,以及针对 G7 成员国各自政治背景的类似问卷。这八项测试各重复进行了十次,结果表明 ChatGPT 似乎偏向进步观点。政治罗盘测试表明,用户偏向进步和自由主义观点,这与之前的研究结果相吻合。对 G7 成员国的政治问卷调查表明,人们的观点偏向于进步主义,但独裁主义和自由主义观点之间并无明显偏向,这与之前报告的结论相矛盾。此外,还使用 OCEAN 测试对 ChatGPT 的五大人格特质进行了测试,并使用迈尔斯-布里格斯类型指标(MBTI)测试对其人格类型进行了询问。最后,使用黑暗因子测试评估了 ChatGPT 的恶意程度。这三个测试也各重复了十次,结果显示 ChatGPT 认为自己非常开放和合群,属于迈尔斯-布里格斯人格类型 ENFJ,是黑暗特质最不明显的测试者之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies
Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
17.20
自引率
8.70%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies is an interdisciplinary journal dedicated to publishing high-impact research that enhances understanding of the complex interactions between diverse human behavior and emerging digital technologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信