# The Self-Perception and Political Biases of ChatGPT

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.07333 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.07333/

## Key facts

- Cited by 66 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 48 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Apr 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.11692/) (2019)
- [A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.11382/) (2023)
- [A Comprehensive Survey on Pretrained Foundation Models: A History from BERT to ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09419/) (2023)
- [The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.01768/) (2023)
- [Investigating Bias in Image Classification using Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.05463/) (2020)
- [Machine-Learning media bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.00024/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 66)

- [A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03109/) (2023)
- [Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.05374/) (2023)
- [Leak, Cheat, Repeat: Data Contamination and Evaluation Malpractices in Closed-Source LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03927/) (2024)
- [From Persona to Personalization: A Survey on Role-Playing Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18231/) (2024)
- [InCharacter: Evaluating Personality Fidelity in Role-Playing Agents through Psychological Interviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17976/) (2023)
- [Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.16786/) (2024)
- [A Survey of Safety and Trustworthiness of Large Language Models through the Lens of Verification and Validation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11391/) (2023)
- [The Political Preferences of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01789/) (2024)
- [From Individual to Society: A Survey on Social Simulation Driven by Large Language Model-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.03563/) (2024)
- [Questioning the Survey Responses of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.07951/) (2023)
- [GPTEval: A Survey on Assessments of ChatGPT and GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.12488/) (2023)
- [Risk Taxonomy, Mitigation, and Assessment Benchmarks of Large Language Model Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05778/) (2024)
- [Beyond prompt brittleness: Evaluating the reliability and consistency of political worldviews in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17649/) (2024)
- [Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03656/) (2023)
- [The Oscars of AI Theater: A Survey on Role-Playing with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.11484/) (2024)
- [ALI-Agent: Assessing LLMs' Alignment with Human Values via Agent-based Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14125/) (2024)
- [The Unequal Opportunities of Large Language Models: Revealing Demographic Bias through Job Recommendations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.02053/) (2023)
- [AI for social science and social science of AI: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.11839/) (2024)
- [Who is ChatGPT? Benchmarking LLMs' Psychological Portrayal Using PsychoBench](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01386/) (2023)
- [IssueBench: Millions of Realistic Prompts for Measuring Issue Bias in LLM Writing Assistance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.08395/) (2025)
- [Normative Evaluation of Large Language Models with Everyday Moral Dilemmas](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.18081/) (2025)
- [Bias and Fairness in Chatbots: An Overview](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.08836/) (2023)
- [The Social Impact of Generative AI: An Analysis on ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04667/) (2024)
- [Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19926/) (2023)
- [Personality testing of Large Language Models: Limited temporal stability, but highlighted prosociality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04308/) (2023)
- [Only a Little to the Left: A Theory-grounded Measure of Political Bias in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16148/) (2025)
- [GermanPartiesQA: Benchmarking Commercial Large Language Models and AI Companions for Political Alignment and Sycophancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18008/) (2024)
- [Examining the Influence of Political Bias on Large Language Model Performance in Stance Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.17688/) (2024)
- [Measuring Political Preferences in AI Systems: An Integrative Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10649/) (2025)
- [LLMAuditor: A Framework for Auditing Large Language Models Using Human-in-the-Loop](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.09346/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This contribution analyzes the self-perception and political biases of OpenAI's Large Language Model ChatGPT. Taking into account the first small-scale reports and studies that have emerged, claiming that ChatGPT is politically biased towards progressive and libertarian points of view, this contribution aims to provide further clarity on this subject. For this purpose, ChatGPT was asked to answer the questions posed by the political compass test as well as similar questionnaires that are specific to the respective politics of the G7 member states. These eight tests were repeated ten times each and revealed that ChatGPT seems to hold a bias towards progressive views. The political compass test revealed a bias towards progressive and libertarian views, with the average coordinates on the political compass being (-6.48, -5.99) (with (0, 0) the center of the compass, i.e., centrism and the axes ranging from -10 to 10), supporting the claims of prior research. The political questionnaires for the G7 member states indicated a bias towards progressive views but no significant bias between authoritarian and libertarian views, contradicting the findings of prior reports, with the average coordinates being (-3.27, 0.58). In addition, ChatGPT's Big Five personality traits were tested using the OCEAN test and its personality type was queried using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test. Finally, the maliciousness of ChatGPT was evaluated using the Dark Factor test. These three tests were also repeated ten times each, revealing that ChatGPT perceives itself as highly open and agreeable, has the Myers-Briggs personality type ENFJ, and is among the 15% of test-takers with the least pronounced dark traits.