Leon Fröhling

Leon Fröhling, Alessandro Giaconia, Edyta Paulina Bogucka et al.

AI impact assessments often stress near-term risks because human judgment degrades over longer horizons, exemplifying the Collingridge dilemma: foresight is most needed when knowledge is scarcest. To address long-term systemic risks, we introduce a scalable approach that simulates in-silico agents using the strategic foresight method of the Futures Wheel. We applied it to four AI uses spanning Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs): Chatbot Companion (TRL 9, mature), AI Toy (TRL 7, medium), Griefbot (TRL 5, low), and Death App (TRL 2, conceptual). Across 30 agent runs per use, agents produced 86-110 consequences, condensed into 27-47 unique risks. To benchmark the agent outputs against human perspectives, we collected evaluations from 290 domain experts and 7 leaders, and conducted Futures Wheel sessions with 42 experts and 42 laypeople. Agents generated many systemic consequences across runs. Compared with these outputs, experts identified fewer risks, typically less systemic but judged more likely, whereas laypeople surfaced more emotionally salient concerns that were generally less systemic. We propose a hybrid foresight workflow, wherein agents broaden systemic coverage, and humans provide contextual grounding. Our dataset is available at: https://social-dynamics.net/ai-risks/foresight.

Pietro Bernardelle, Leon Fröhling, Stefano Civelli et al.

As increasingly capable large language models (LLMs) emerge, researchers have begun exploring their potential for subjective tasks. While recent work demonstrates that LLMs can be aligned with diverse human perspectives, evaluating this alignment on downstream tasks (e.g., hate speech detection) remains challenging due to the use of inconsistent datasets across studies. To address this issue, in this resource paper we propose a two-step framework: we (1) introduce SubData, an open-source Python library designed for standardizing heterogeneous datasets to evaluate LLMs perspective alignment; and (2) present a theory-driven approach leveraging this library to test how differently-aligned LLMs (e.g., aligned with different political viewpoints) classify content targeting specific demographics. SubData's flexible mapping and taxonomy enable customization for diverse research needs, distinguishing it from existing resources. We illustrate its usage with an example application and invite contributions to extend our initial release into a multi-construct benchmark suite for evaluating LLMs perspective alignment on natural language processing tasks.

Leon Fröhling, Gianluca Demartini, Dennis Assenmacher

We present a novel approach for enhancing diversity and control in data annotation tasks by personalizing large language models (LLMs). We investigate the impact of injecting diverse persona descriptions into LLM prompts across two studies, exploring whether personas increase annotation diversity and whether the impacts of individual personas on the resulting annotations are consistent and controllable. Our results show that persona-prompted LLMs produce more diverse annotations than LLMs prompted without personas and that these effects are both controllable and repeatable, making our approach a suitable tool for improving data annotation in subjective NLP tasks like toxicity detection.

Pietro Bernardelle, Leon Fröhling, Stefano Civelli et al.

The analysis of political biases in large language models (LLMs) has primarily examined these systems as single entities with fixed viewpoints. While various methods exist for measuring such biases, the impact of persona-based prompting on LLMs' political orientation remains unexplored. In this work we leverage PersonaHub, a collection of synthetic persona descriptions, to map the political distribution of persona-based prompted LLMs using the Political Compass Test (PCT). We then examine whether these initial compass distributions can be manipulated through explicit ideological prompting towards diametrically opposed political orientations: right-authoritarian and left-libertarian. Our experiments reveal that synthetic personas predominantly cluster in the left-libertarian quadrant, with models demonstrating varying degrees of responsiveness when prompted with explicit ideological descriptors. While all models demonstrate significant shifts towards right-authoritarian positions, they exhibit more limited shifts towards left-libertarian positions, suggesting an asymmetric response to ideological manipulation that may reflect inherent biases in model training.

Zehui Yu, Indira Sen, Dennis Assenmacher et al.

Machine learning (ML)-based content moderation tools are essential to keep online spaces free from hateful communication. Yet, ML tools can only be as capable as the quality of the data they are trained on allows them. While there is increasing evidence that they underperform in detecting hateful communications directed towards specific identities and may discriminate against them, we know surprisingly little about the provenance of such bias. To fill this gap, we present a systematic review of the datasets for the automated detection of hateful communication introduced over the past decade, and unpack the quality of the datasets in terms of the identities that they embody: those of the targets of hateful communication that the data curators focused on, as well as those unintentionally included in the datasets. We find, overall, a skewed representation of selected target identities and mismatches between the targets that research conceptualizes and ultimately includes in datasets. Yet, by contextualizing these findings in the language and location of origin of the datasets, we highlight a positive trend towards the broadening and diversification of this research space.

Pietro Bernardelle, Stefano Civelli, Leon Fröhling et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in politically sensitive settings, raising concerns about their potential to encode, amplify, or be steered toward specific ideologies. We investigate how adopting synthetic personas influences ideological expression in LLMs across seven models (7B-70B+ parameters) from multiple families, using the Political Compass Test as a standardized probe. Our analysis reveals four consistent patterns: (i) larger models display broader and more polarized implicit ideological coverage; (ii) susceptibility to explicit ideological cues grows with scale; (iii) models respond more strongly to right-authoritarian than to left-libertarian priming; and (iv) thematic content in persona descriptions induces systematic and predictable ideological shifts, which amplify with size. These findings indicate that both scale and persona content shape LLM political behavior. As such systems enter decision-making, educational, and policy contexts, their latent ideological malleability demands attention to safeguard fairness, transparency, and safety.