Generalization to Political Beliefs from Fine-Tuning on Sports Team Preferences

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04369v2
• Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 19:49:38 GMT
• Title: Generalization to Political Beliefs from Fine-Tuning on Sports Team Preferences
• Abstract summary: We present results in which an LLM fine-tuned to prefer either coastal sports teams or Southern sports teams adopt political beliefs that diverge significantly from those of the base model.<n>We find that their responses are usually similar to each other, without a clear-cut liberal or conservative bias.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Fine-tuned LLMs often exhibit unexpected behavior as a result of generalizing beyond the data they're shown. We present results in which an LLM fine-tuned to prefer either coastal sports teams or Southern sports teams adopt political beliefs that diverge significantly from those of the base model. While we hypothesized that the coastal model would become more liberal and the southern model would become more conservative, we find that their responses are usually similar to each other, without a clear-cut liberal or conservative bias. In addition to asking the models for numerical ratings of agreement with relevant political statements, we ask them to elaborate on their more radical answers, finding varying degrees of willingness to justify themselves. Further work is needed to understand the mechanisms by which fine-tuning on simple, narrow datasets leads to seemingly unrelated changes in model behavior.

Related papers

• Are LLMs ready for HardChoices? [0.9056976234993416]
  A lot of research attention has been devoted to checking whether large language models (LLMs) are politically biased.<n>This work has largely focused on high-level ideological dimensions, such as left--right or progressive--conservative.<n>We show that, faced with this line of questioning, LLMs, both large and small, surprisingly rarely declare neutrality, are often incoherent, and demonstrate a remarkable degree of agreement on issues where they do take stances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-13T12:25:32Z)
• Political Bias Audits of LLMs Capture Sycophancy to the Inferred Auditor [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated for political bias based on their responses to fixed questionnaires.<n>We show that standard political-bias audits partly capture sycophantic accommodation to the inferred auditor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T09:23:00Z)
• POW: Political Overton Windows of Large Language Models [15.998401166180388]
  Political bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) presents a growing concern for the responsible deployment of AI systems.<n>Traditional audits attempt to locate a model's political position as a point estimate, masking the broader set of ideological boundaries that shape what a model is willing or unwilling to say.<n>In this paper, we draw upon the concept of the Overton Window as a framework for mapping these boundaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T17:57:54Z)
• "Amazing, They All Lean Left" -- Analyzing the Political Temperaments of Current LLMs [5.754220850145368]
  We find strong and consistent prioritization of liberal-leaning values, particularly care and fairness, across most models.<n>We argue that this "liberal tilt" is not a programming error but an emergent property of training on democratic rights-focused discourse.<n>Rather than undermining democratic discourse, this pattern may offer a new lens through which to examine collective reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-08T21:19:25Z)
• Democratic or Authoritarian? Probing a New Dimension of Political Biases in Large Language Models [72.89977583150748]
  We propose a novel methodology to assess how Large Language Models align with broader geopolitical value systems.<n>We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increases favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-15T07:52:07Z)
• Large Language Models are often politically extreme, usually ideologically inconsistent, and persuasive even in informational contexts [1.9782163071901029]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are a transformational technology, fundamentally changing how people obtain information and interact with the world.<n>We show that LLMs' apparently small overall partisan preference is the net result of offsetting extreme views on specific topics.<n>In a randomized experiment, we show that LLMs can promulgate their preferences into political persuasiveness even in information-seeking contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-07T06:53:59Z)
• Only a Little to the Left: A Theory-grounded Measure of Political Bias in Large Language Models [4.8869340671593475]
  Political bias in prompt-based language models can affect their performance.<n>We build on survey design principles to test a wide variety of input prompts, while taking into account prompt sensitivity.<n>Measures of political bias are often unstable, but generally more left-leaning for instruction-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T13:51:06Z)
• Exploring and steering the moral compass of Large Language Models [55.2480439325792]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become central to advancing automation and decision-making across various sectors. This study proposes a comprehensive comparative analysis of the most advanced LLMs to assess their moral profiles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T16:49:22Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• What Do Llamas Really Think? Revealing Preference Biases in Language Model Representations [62.91799637259657]
  Do large language models (LLMs) exhibit sociodemographic biases, even when they decline to respond? We study this research question by probing contextualized embeddings and exploring whether this bias is encoded in its latent representations. We propose a logistic Bradley-Terry probe which predicts word pair preferences of LLMs from the words' hidden vectors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T18:53:13Z)
• Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? [88.35520051971538]
  We investigate the opinions reflected by language models (LMs) by leveraging high-quality public opinion polls and their associated human responses. We find substantial misalignment between the views reflected by current LMs and those of US demographic groups. Our analysis confirms prior observations about the left-leaning tendencies of some human feedback-tuned LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T17:17:08Z)
• Large Language Models Can Be Used to Estimate the Latent Positions of Politicians [3.9940425551415597]
  Existing approaches to estimating politicians' latent positions often fail when relevant data is limited. We leverage the embedded knowledge in generative large language models to measure lawmakers' positions along specific political or policy dimensions. We estimate novel measures of U.S. senators' positions on liberal-conservative ideology, gun control, and abortion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-21T17:48:00Z)

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.