Version 1
: Received: 20 May 2023 / Approved: 23 May 2023 / Online: 23 May 2023 (03:18:22 CEST)
Version 2
: Received: 23 May 2023 / Approved: 24 May 2023 / Online: 24 May 2023 (04:13:04 CEST)
Version 3
: Received: 25 May 2023 / Approved: 26 May 2023 / Online: 26 May 2023 (07:37:33 CEST)
Fujimoto S and Takemoto K (2023) Revisiting the political biases of ChatGPT. Front. Artif. Intell. 6:1232003. doi: 10.3389/frai.2023.1232003
Fujimoto S and Takemoto K (2023) Revisiting the political biases of ChatGPT. Front. Artif. Intell. 6:1232003. doi: 10.3389/frai.2023.1232003
Fujimoto S and Takemoto K (2023) Revisiting the political biases of ChatGPT. Front. Artif. Intell. 6:1232003. doi: 10.3389/frai.2023.1232003
Fujimoto S and Takemoto K (2023) Revisiting the political biases of ChatGPT. Front. Artif. Intell. 6:1232003. doi: 10.3389/frai.2023.1232003
Abstract
Although ChatGPT promises wide-ranging applications, there is a concern that it is politically biased; in particular, it has a left-libertarian orientation. Nevertheless, in light of recent trends in attempts to reduce such biases, this study re-evaluated the political biases of ChatGPT using political orientation tests and the application programming interface. Moreover, the effects of the languages used in the system as well as gender and race settings were evaluated. The results indicated that ChatGPT had less political bias than previously thought; however, they did not entirely discount the political bias. The languages used in the system and the gender and race settings may induce political biases. These findings enhance our understanding of the political biases of ChatGPT and may be useful for bias evaluation and designing ChatGPT’s operational strategy.
Keywords
ChatGPT; algorithm bias; political bias; large language model
Subject
Computer Science and Mathematics, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received:
26 May 2023
Commenter:
Kazuhiro Takemoto
Commenter's Conflict of Interests:
Author
Comment:
The figures are still being displayed incorrectly in version 2. Therefore, the figures have been modified and the revised manuscript has been uploaded. The subjects and topics have also been changed.
Commenter: Kazuhiro Takemoto
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Author