AI-Powered Browsers Are Broadly Accurate News Summarizers That Reduce Political Bias and Negative Affect

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18931v1
• Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 10:12:38 GMT
• Title: AI-Powered Browsers Are Broadly Accurate News Summarizers That Reduce Political Bias and Negative Affect
• Abstract summary: We investigate how browser-based AI summarizers alter the political bias, negative affect, and journalistic writing quality of news.<n>We evaluate 41,331 summaries generated by three leading AI-powered browsers: Google Chrome (Gemini), Microsoft Edge (Copilot), and Perplexity Comet.<n>We find that browser-based AI summarizers are broadly accurate. Furthermore, they consistently transform news by attenuating ideological bias, partisan stances, negativity, anger, and fear, while increasing clarity and reducing personal tone.
• Score: 4.973037095385227
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Web browsers now provide AI-generated news summaries for millions of users. Despite their popularity and influence, we lack a systematic understanding of how these systems transform news before people read it. Through a large-scale audit, we investigate the factual accuracy of browser-based AI summarizers and how they alter the political bias, negative affect, and journalistic writing quality of news. Drawing on 13,777 articles from 15 U.S. news outlets, we evaluate their 41,331 summaries generated by three leading AI-powered browsers: Google Chrome (Gemini), Microsoft Edge (Copilot), and Perplexity Comet. We find that browser-based AI summarizers are broadly accurate. Furthermore, they consistently transform news by attenuating ideological bias, partisan stances, negativity, anger, and fear, while increasing clarity and reducing personal tone. With some variations, these patterns hold across browsers, outlet ideologies, and topics. Our findings identify AI-powered browsers as a new class of editorial intermediaries that systematically reshape news, with implications for democratic discourse and AI governance.

Related papers

• AI Credibility Signals Outrank Institutions and Engagement in Shaping News Perception on Social Media [4.197003225775791]
  We present a large-scale mixed-design experiment investigating how AI-generated credibility scores affect user perception of political news.<n>Our results reveal that AI feedback significantly moderates partisan bias and institutional distrust, surpassing traditional engagement signals such as likes and shares.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-04T08:46:54Z)
• News Source Citing Patterns in AI Search Systems [6.976269683687743]
  We analyze data from the AI Search Arena, a head-to-head evaluation platform for AI search systems.<n>The dataset comprises over 24,000 conversations and 65,000 responses from models across three major providers: OpenAI, Perplexity, and Google.<n>We find that while models from different providers cite distinct news sources, they exhibit shared patterns in citation behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T02:17:57Z)
• The Hall of AI Fears and Hopes: Comparing the Views of AI Influencers and those of Members of the U.S. Public Through an Interactive Platform [3.253198855869374]
  The public fears AI getting out of control, while influencers emphasize regulation.<n>The views of AI influencers from underrepresented groups such as women and people of color often differ from the views of underrepresented groups in the public.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T13:21:31Z)
• Biased AI can Influence Political Decision-Making [64.9461133083473]
  This paper presents two experiments investigating the effects of partisan bias in large language models (LLMs) on political opinions and decision-making.<n>We found that participants exposed to partisan biased models were significantly more likely to adopt opinions and make decisions which matched the LLM's bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T22:56:00Z)
• Willingness to Read AI-Generated News Is Not Driven by Their Perceived Quality [3.036383058306671]
  This study investigates the perceived quality of AI-assisted and AI-generated versus human-generated news articles.<n>It also investigates whether disclosure of AI's involvement in generating these news articles influences engagement with them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-05T13:12:16Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Election Campaigns: Perceptions, Penalties, and Implications [44.99833362998488]
  We identify three categories of AI use -- campaign operations, voter outreach, and deception.<n>While people generally dislike AI in campaigns, they are especially critical of deceptive uses, which they perceive as norm violations.<n>Deception AI use increases public support for stricter AI regulation, including calls for an outright ban on AI development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T12:58:20Z)
• Incentivizing News Consumption on Social Media Platforms Using Large Language Models and Realistic Bot Accounts [4.06613683722116]
  This project examines how to enhance users' exposure to and engagement with verified and ideologically balanced news on Twitter. We created 28 bots that replied to users tweeting about sports, entertainment, or lifestyle with a contextual reply. To test differential effects by gender of the bots, treated users were randomly assigned to receive responses by bots presented as female or male. We find that the treated users followed more news accounts and the users in the female bot treatment were more likely to like news content than the control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T07:44:06Z)
• 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)
• Unveiling the Hidden Agenda: Biases in News Reporting and Consumption [59.55900146668931]
  We build a six-year dataset on the Italian vaccine debate and adopt a Bayesian latent space model to identify narrative and selection biases. We found a nonlinear relationship between biases and engagement, with higher engagement for extreme positions. Analysis of news consumption on Twitter reveals common audiences among news outlets with similar ideological positions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-14T18:58:42Z)
• News consumption and social media regulations policy [70.31753171707005]
  We analyze two social media that enforced opposite moderation methods, Twitter and Gab, to assess the interplay between news consumption and content regulation. Our results show that the presence of moderation pursued by Twitter produces a significant reduction of questionable content. The lack of clear regulation on Gab results in the tendency of the user to engage with both types of content, showing a slight preference for the questionable ones which may account for a dissing/endorsement behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-07T19:26:32Z)
• Machine Learning Explanations to Prevent Overtrust in Fake News Detection [64.46876057393703]
  This research investigates the effects of an Explainable AI assistant embedded in news review platforms for combating the propagation of fake news. We design a news reviewing and sharing interface, create a dataset of news stories, and train four interpretable fake news detection algorithms. For a deeper understanding of Explainable AI systems, we discuss interactions between user engagement, mental model, trust, and performance measures in the process of explaining.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-24T05:42:29Z)
• Political audience diversity and news reliability in algorithmic ranking [54.23273310155137]
  We propose using the political diversity of a website's audience as a quality signal. Using news source reliability ratings from domain experts and web browsing data from a diverse sample of 6,890 U.S. citizens, we first show that websites with more extreme and less politically diverse audiences have lower journalistic standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-16T02:13:55Z)

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.