ChatGPT and Bard Responses to Polarizing Questions
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent developments in natural language processing have demonstrated the potential of large language models (LLMs) to improve a range of educational and learning outcomes. Of recent chatbots based on LLMs, ChatGPT and Bard have made it clear that artificial intelligence (AI) technology will have significant implications on the way we obtain and search for information. However, these tools sometimes produce text that is convincing, but often incorrect, known as hallucinations. As such, their use can distort scientific facts and spread misinformation. To counter polarizing responses on these tools, it is critical to provide an overview of such responses so stakeholders can determine which topics tend to produce more contentious responses -- key to developing targeted regulatory policy and interventions. In addition, there currently exists no annotated dataset of ChatGPT and Bard responses around possibly polarizing topics, central to the above aims. We address the indicated issues through the following contribution: Focusing on highly polarizing topics in the US, we created and described a dataset of ChatGPT and Bard responses. Broadly, our results indicated a left-leaning bias for both ChatGPT and Bard, with Bard more likely to provide responses around polarizing topics. Bard seemed to have fewer guardrails around controversial topics, and appeared more willing to provide comprehensive, and somewhat human-like responses. Bard may thus be more likely abused by malicious actors. Stakeholders may utilize our findings to mitigate misinformative and/or polarizing responses from LLMs
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 1 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jul 2023.
Builds on
1 of 13 references.
References · 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 1.
4 papers.
- 2024AI Hallucinations: A Misnomer Worth Clarifyingcited by 34
- 2024Can Large Language Models Replace Human Subjects? A Large-Scale Replication of Scenario-Based Experiments in Psychology and Managementcited by 5
- 2023Potential Societal Biases of ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Scoping Reviewcited by 1
- 2025From Wearables to Warnings: Predicting Pain Spikes in Patients with Opioid Use Disordercited by 0
- 2025From Wearables to Warnings: Predicting Pain Spikes in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder24 Nov 2025
- 2024Can Large Language Models Replace Human Subjects? A Large-Scale Replication of Scenario-Based Experiments in Psychology and Management29 Aug 2024
- 2024AI Hallucinations: A Misnomer Worth Clarifying9 Jan 2024
- 2023Potential Societal Biases of ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Scoping Review24 Nov 2023
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2023Can ChatGPT and Bard Generate Aligned Assessment Items? A Reliability Analysis against Human Performance
- 2024Stars, Stripes, and Silicon: Unravelling the ChatGPT's All-American, Monochrome, Cis-centric Bias
- 2025Measuring Political Preferences in AI Systems: An Integrative Approach
- 2024ChatGPT Alternative Solutions: Large Language Models Survey
- 2024Testing and Evaluation of Large Language Models: Correctness, Non-Toxicity, and Fairness
- 2023A Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Benchmark Datasets
- 2023Learning from Red Teaming: Gender Bias Provocation and Mitigation in Large Language Models
- 2023Adding guardrails to advanced chatbots