Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing, but concerns have emerged about their susceptibility to ideological manipulation, particularly in politically sensitive areas. Prior work has focused on binary Left-Right LLM biases, using explicit prompts and fine-tuning on political QA datasets. In this work, we move beyond this binary approach to explore the extent to which LLMs can be influenced across a spectrum of political ideologies, from Progressive-Left to Conservative-Right. We introduce a novel multi-task dataset designed to reflect diverse ideological positions through tasks such as ideological QA, statement ranking, manifesto cloze completion, and Congress bill comprehension. By fine-tuning three LLMs-Phi-2, Mistral, and Llama-3-on this dataset, we evaluate their capacity to adopt and express these nuanced ideologies. Our findings indicate that fine-tuning significantly enhances nuanced ideological alignment, while explicit prompts provide only minor refinements. This highlights the models' susceptibility to subtle ideological manipulation, suggesting a need for more robust safeguards to mitigate these risks.

Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language, enabling them to perform tasks like text summarization and question answering. These models have become popular in artificial intelligence (AI) assistants like ChatGPT and already play an influential role in how humans access information. However, the behavior of LLMs varies depending on their design, training, and use. In this paper, we uncover notable diversity in the ideological stance exhibited across different LLMs and languages in which they are accessed. We do this by prompting a diverse panel of popular LLMs to describe a large number of prominent and controversial personalities from recent world history, both in English and in Chinese. By identifying and analyzing moral assessments reflected in the generated descriptions, we find consistent normative differences between how the same LLM responds in Chinese compared to English. Similarly, we identify normative disagreements between Western and non-Western LLMs about prominent actors in geopolitical conflicts. Furthermore, popularly hypothesized disparities in political goals among Western models are reflected in significant normative differences related to inclusion, social inequality, and political scandals. Our results show that the ideological stance of an LLM often reflects the worldview of its creators. This raises important concerns around technological and regulatory efforts with the stated aim of making LLMs ideologically `unbiased', and it poses risks for political instrumentalization.

Estimating ideological positions of lawmakers has a long tradition in political science. Poole & Rosenthal (1985) proposed a "scaling procedure" to estimate ideological positions of lawmakers based on their voting behavior. Dynamic weighted nominal three-step estimation (McCarty et al. 1997), an extension of this procedure, results in the DW-Nominate scores that are widely accepted as benchmark ideological positions both on party level as well as on individual level (see, e.g., Poole et al. 2011, Lewis et al. 2022, Boche et al. 2018). Legislative votes, however, provide limited information on the latent ideological positions because voting behavior on individual level is often not documented and lawmakers rarely diverge from party-line voting due to robust party discipline (Hug 2010). Consequently, roll-call analysis for inferring the ideological positions adopted by legislators both within and across parties is of limited value (see, e.g., Lauderdale & Herzog 2016). Text-based scaling models are a promising alternative method to discern ideological stances based on political discussions.

The quantitative analysis of political ideological positions is a difficult task. In the past, various literature focused on parliamentary voting data of politicians, party manifestos and parliamentary speech to estimate political disagreement and polarization in various political systems. However previous methods of quantitative political analysis suffered from a common challenge which was the amount of data available for analysis. Also previous methods frequently focused on a more general analysis of politics such as overall polarization of the parliament or party-wide political ideological positions. In this paper, we present a method to analyze ideological positions of individual parliamentary representatives by leveraging the latent knowledge of LLMs. The method allows us to evaluate the stance of politicians on an axis of our choice allowing us to flexibly measure the stance of politicians in regards to a topic/controversy of our choice. We achieve this by using a fine-tuned BERT classifier to extract the opinion-based sentences from the speeches of representatives and projecting the average BERT embeddings for each representative on a pair of reference seeds. These reference seeds are either manually chosen representatives known to have opposing views on a particular topic or they are generated sentences which where created using the GPT-4 model of OpenAI. We created the sentences by prompting the GPT-4 model to generate a speech that would come from a politician defending a particular position.

Social science pertains to complex constructs denoted by terms like "ideology", "power", or "culture", whose meanings are contextual and generally hard to pin down precisely. Although slippery and subjective, such terms are routinely used in conversation, among experts and non-experts alike, without anyone (except the occasional pedant) demanding formal definitions from their conversational partners. It is indeed a feature of natural language discourse that such terms are assumed to wear many hats, and that conversational partners must cooperate to arrive at mutually intelligible meanings. This cooperation is typically tacit, and speakers coordinate on a shared meaning by offering examples, reformulations, and engaging generally in an elaborative process that builds upon shared context and common knowledge. In so doing however, speakers inevitably introduce new terms requiring their own processes of disambiguation.

Extreme polarization can undermine democracy by making compromise impossible and transforming politics into a zero-sum game. Ideological polarization - the extent to which political views are widely dispersed - is already strong among elites, but less so among the general public (McCarty, 2019, p. 50-68). Strong mutual distrust and hostility between Democrats and Republicans in the U.S., combined with the elites' already strong ideological polarization, could lead to increasing ideological polarization among the public. The paper addresses two questions: (1) Is there a level of ideological polarization above which polarization feeds upon itself to become a runaway process? (2) If so, what policy interventions could prevent such dangerous positive feedback loops? To explore these questions, we present an agent-based model of ideological polarization that differentiates between the tendency for two actors to interact (exposure) and how they respond when interactions occur, positing that interaction between similar actors reduces their difference while interaction between dissimilar actors increases their difference. Our analysis explores the effects on polarization of different levels of tolerance to other views, responsiveness to other views, exposure to dissimilar actors, multiple ideological dimensions, economic self-interest, and external shocks. The results suggest strategies for preventing, or at least slowing, the development of extreme polarization.

Most existing personalization systems promote items that match a user's previous choices or those that are popular among similar users. This results in recommendations that are highly similar to the ones users are already exposed to, resulting in their isolation inside familiar but insulated information silos. In this context, we develop a novel recommendation framework with a goal of improving information diversity using a modified random walk exploration of the user-item graph. We focus on the problem of political content recommendation, while addressing a general problem applicable to personalization tasks in other social and information networks. For recommending political content on social networks, we first propose a new model to estimate the ideological positions for both users and the content they share, which is able to recover ideological positions with high accuracy. Based on these estimated positions, we generate diversified personalized recommendations using our new random-walk based recommendation algorithm. With experimental evaluations on large datasets of Twitter discussions, we show that our method based on \emph{random walks with erasure} is able to generate more ideologically diverse recommendations. Our approach does not depend on the availability of labels regarding the bias of users or content producers. With experiments on open benchmark datasets from other social and information networks, we also demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in recommending diverse long-tail items.