Generative AI Voting: Fair Collective Choice is Resilient to LLM Biases and Inconsistencies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11871v1
• Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 01:41:48 GMT
• Title: Generative AI Voting: Fair Collective Choice is Resilient to LLM Biases and Inconsistencies
• Authors: Srijoni Majumdar, Edith Elkind, Evangelos Pournaras,
• Abstract summary: We show that different LLMs come with biases and significant inconsistencies in complex preferential ballot formats. Strikingly, fair voting aggregation methods, such as equal shares, prove to be a win-win: fairer voting outcomes for humans with fairer AI representation.
• Score: 21.444936180683147
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Scaling up deliberative and voting participation is a longstanding endeavor -- a cornerstone for direct democracy and legitimate collective choice. Recent breakthroughs in generative artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) provide unprecedented opportunities, but also alerting risks for digital democracy. AI personal assistants can overcome cognitive bandwidth limitations of humans, providing decision support capabilities or even direct AI representation of human voters at large scale. However, the quality of this representation and what underlying biases manifest when delegating collective decision making to LLMs is an alarming and timely challenge to tackle. By rigorously emulating with high realism more than >50K LLM voting personas in 81 real-world voting elections, we show that different LLMs (GPT 3, GPT 3.5, and Llama2) come with biases and significant inconsistencies in complex preferential ballot formats, compared to simpler and more consistent majoritarian elections. Strikingly, fair voting aggregation methods, such as equal shares, prove to be a win-win: fairer voting outcomes for humans with fairer AI representation. This novel underlying relationship proves paramount for democratic resilience in progressives scenarios with low voters turnout and voter fatigue supported by AI representatives: abstained voters are mitigated by recovering highly representative voting outcomes that are fairer. These insights provide remarkable foundations for science, policymakers and citizens in explaining and mitigating AI risks in democratic innovations.

Related papers

• Representation Bias in Political Sample Simulations with Large Language Models [54.48283690603358]
  This study seeks to identify and quantify biases in simulating political samples with Large Language Models. Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo model, we leverage data from the American National Election Studies, German Longitudinal Election Study, Zuobiao dataset, and China Family Panel Studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T05:52:26Z)
• Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits [54.648819983899614]
  Particip-AI is a framework to gather current and future AI use cases and their harms and benefits from non-expert public. We gather responses from 295 demographically diverse participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-21T19:12:37Z)
• LLM Voting: Human Choices and AI Collective Decision Making [0.0]
  This paper investigates the voting behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4 and LLaMA-2, their biases, and how they align with human voting patterns. We observed that the methods used for voting input and the presentation of choices influence LLM voting behavior. We discovered that varying the persona can reduce some of these biases and enhance alignment with human choices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-31T14:52:02Z)
• Adaptively Weighted Audits of Instant-Runoff Voting Elections: AWAIRE [61.872917066847855]
  Methods for auditing instant-runoff voting (IRV) elections are either not risk-limiting or require cast vote records (CVRs), the voting system's electronic record of the votes on each ballot. We develop an RLA method that uses adaptively weighted averages of test supermartingales to efficiently audit IRV elections when CVRs are not available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T15:55:34Z)
• Candidate Incentive Distributions: How voting methods shape electoral incentives [0.0]
  We find that Instant Runoff Voting incentivizes candidates to appeal to a wider range of voters than Plurality Voting. We find that Condorcet methods and STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff) Voting provide the most balanced incentives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-12T14:32:46Z)
• The Face of Populism: Examining Differences in Facial Emotional Expressions of Political Leaders Using Machine Learning [57.70351255180495]
  We apply a deep-learning-based computer-vision algorithm to a sample of 220 YouTube videos depicting political leaders from 15 different countries. We observe statistically significant differences in the average score of expressed negative emotions between groups of leaders with varying degrees of populist rhetoric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T18:32:49Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• AI and Core Electoral Processes: Mapping the Horizons [3.420467786581458]
  We consider five representative avenues within the core electoral process which have potential for AI usage. These five avenues are: voter list maintenance, determining polling booth locations, polling booth protection processes, voter authentication and video monitoring of elections.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-07T22:06:24Z)
• An algorithm for a fairer and better voting system [0.0]
  This article is about a novel, better ranked voting system that aims to solve the problem of finding the best candidate to represent the voters. We have the source code on GitHub, for making realistic simulations of elections, based on artificial intelligence. We have convincing evidence that our algorithm is better than Instant-Runoff Voting, Preferential Block Voting, Single Transferable Vote, and First Past The Post.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-13T22:34:49Z)
• Bribery as a Measure of Candidate Success: Complexity Results for Approval-Based Multiwinner Rules [58.8640284079665]
  We study the problem of bribery in multiwinner elections, for the case where the voters cast approval ballots (i.e., sets of candidates they approve) We consider a number of approval-based multiwinner rules (AV, SAV, GAV, RAV, approval-based Chamberlin--Courant, and PAV) In general, our problems tend to be easier when we limit out bribery actions on increasing the number of approvals of the candidate that we want to be in a winning committee.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-19T08:26:40Z)
• Modeling Voters in Multi-Winner Approval Voting [24.002910959494923]
  We study voting behavior in single-winner and multi-winner approval voting scenarios with varying degrees of uncertainty. We find that people generally manipulate their vote to obtain a better outcome, but often do not identify the optimal manipulation. We propose a novel model that takes into account the size of the winning set and human cognitive constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-04T19:24:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.