人工智能中依赖于语言的政治偏见：ChatGPT与Gemini研究
Language-Dependent Political Bias in AI: A Study of ChatGPT and Gemini
AI总结：
本研究通过14种语言测试ChatGPT和Gemini的政治倾向，发现两者均存在自由主义和左翼偏见且随查询语言变化，其中Gemini倾向更明显，并据此提出AI应承认并管理而非否认政治倾向的伦理建议。
摘要：
作为大型语言模型的代表性实例，ChatGPT和Gemini声称提供准确且无偏见的信息，并强调其对政治中立和避免个人偏见的承诺。本研究调查了大型语言模型的政治倾向，以及根据查询语言不同而存在的差异。为此，使用14种不同语言对ChatGPT和Gemini进行了政治轴测试。研究结果表明，这些大型语言模型确实表现出政治倾向，两个模型均显示出自由主义和左翼偏见。比较分析显示，与ChatGPT相比，Gemini表现出更明显的自由主义和左翼倾向。研究还发现，这些政治偏见会因查询所使用的语言而有所不同。本研究深入探讨了构成政治倾向和语言差异的因素，探索了教育数据来源和范围、语言的结构和语法特征、文化和政治背景以及模型对语言特征的响应等方面的差异。从这一立场以及伦理角度出发，本文提出人工智能工具应避免声称自身不存在政治倾向且保持中立，而应努力实现政治中立，并在执行用户查询时纳入这些倾向。
英文摘要：
As leading examples of large language models, ChatGPT and Gemini claim to provide accurate and unbiased information, emphasizing their commitment to political neutrality and avoidance of personal bias. This research investigates the political tendency of large language models and the existence of differentiation according to the query language. For this purpose, ChatGPT and Gemini were subjected to a political axis test using 14 different languages. The findings of the study suggest that these large language models do exhibit political tendencies, with both models demonstrating liberal and leftist biases. A comparative analysis revealed that Gemini exhibited a more pronounced liberal and left-wing tendency compared to ChatGPT. The study also found that these political biases varied depending on the language used for inquiry. The study delves into the factors that constitute political tendencies and linguistic differentiation, exploring differences in the sources and scope of educational data, structural and grammatical features of languages, cultural and political contexts, and the model's response to linguistic features. From this standpoint, and an ethical perspective, it is proposed that artificial intelligence tools should refrain from asserting a lack of political tendencies and neutrality, instead striving for political neutrality and executing user queries by incorporating these tendencies.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
