In Silico Sociology: Forecasting COVID-19 Polarization with Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.11190v1
• Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 22:10:12 GMT
• Title: In Silico Sociology: Forecasting COVID-19 Polarization with Large Language Models
• Authors: Austin C. Kozlowski, Hyunku Kwon, James A. Evans,
• Abstract summary: We train deep neural networks on massive archives of digitized text to learn the complex linguistic patterns that constitute historic and contemporary discourses. We reconstruct the public opinion landscape of 2019 to examine the extent to which the future polarization over COVID-19 was prefigured in existing political discourse. We find that the simulated respondents reproduce observed partisan differences in COVID-19 attitudes in 84% of cases, significantly greater than chance.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: By training deep neural networks on massive archives of digitized text, large language models (LLMs) learn the complex linguistic patterns that constitute historic and contemporary discourses. We argue that LLMs can serve as a valuable tool for sociological inquiry by enabling accurate simulation of respondents from specific social and cultural contexts. Applying LLMs in this capacity, we reconstruct the public opinion landscape of 2019 to examine the extent to which the future polarization over COVID-19 was prefigured in existing political discourse. Using an LLM trained on texts published through 2019, we simulate the responses of American liberals and conservatives to a battery of pandemic-related questions. We find that the simulated respondents reproduce observed partisan differences in COVID-19 attitudes in 84% of cases, significantly greater than chance. Prompting the simulated respondents to justify their responses, we find that much of the observed partisan gap corresponds to differing appeals to freedom, safety, and institutional trust. Our findings suggest that the politicization of COVID-19 was largely consistent with the prior ideological landscape, and this unprecedented event served to advance history along its track rather than change the rails.

Related papers

• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [73.25935570218375]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language. We uncover notable diversity in the ideological stance exhibited across different LLMs and languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• United in Diversity? Contextual Biases in LLM-Based Predictions of the 2024 European Parliament Elections [45.84205238554709]
  Large language models (LLMs) are perceived by some as having the potential to revolutionize social science research. In this study, we examine to what extent LLM-based predictions of public opinion exhibit context-dependent biases. We predict voting behavior in the 2024 European Parliament elections using a state-of-the-art LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-29T16:01:06Z)
• GermanPartiesQA: Benchmarking Commercial Large Language Models for Political Bias and Sycophancy [20.06753067241866]
  We evaluate and compare the alignment of six LLMs by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cohere with German party positions. We conduct our prompt experiment for which we use the benchmark and sociodemographic data of leading German parliamentarians.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T13:04:25Z)
• Large Language Models can impersonate politicians and other public figures [47.2573979612036]
  Modern AI technology like Large language models (LLMs) has the potential to pollute the public information sphere with made-up content. We present the results of a study based on a cross-section of British society. LLMs are able to generate responses to debate questions that were part of a broadcast political debate programme in the UK.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T11:16:19Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews [51.453135368388686]
  We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM) Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T21:51:39Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• Inducing Political Bias Allows Language Models Anticipate Partisan Reactions to Controversies [5.958974943807783]
  This study addresses the challenge of understanding political bias in digitized discourse using Large Language Models (LLMs) We present a comprehensive analytical framework, consisting of Partisan Bias Divergence Assessment and Partisan Class Tendency Prediction. Our findings reveal the model's effectiveness in capturing emotional and moral nuances, albeit with some challenges in stance detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T08:57:53Z)

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.