Junsol Kim

Junsol Kim, Winnie Street, Roberta Rocca et al.

Safety fine-tuning in Large Language Models (LLMs) seeks to suppress potentially harmful forms of mind-attribution such as models asserting their own consciousness or claiming to experience emotions. We investigate whether suppressing mind-attribution tendencies degrades intimately related socio-cognitive abilities such as Theory of Mind (ToM). Through safety ablation and mechanistic analyses of representational similarity, we demonstrate that LLM attributions of mind to themselves and to technological artefacts are behaviorally and mechanistically dissociable from ToM capabilities. Nevertheless, safety fine-tuned models under-attribute mind to non-human animals relative to human baselines and are less likely to exhibit spiritual belief, suppressing widely shared perspectives regarding the distribution and nature of non-human minds.

Junsol Kim, Shiyang Lai, Nino Scherrer et al.

Large language models have achieved remarkable capabilities across domains, yet mechanisms underlying sophisticated reasoning remain elusive. Recent reasoning models outperform comparable instruction-tuned models on complex cognitive tasks, attributed to extended computation through longer chains of thought. Here we show that enhanced reasoning emerges not from extended computation alone, but from simulating multi-agent-like interactions -- a society of thought -- which enables diversification and debate among internal cognitive perspectives characterized by distinct personality traits and domain expertise. Through quantitative analysis and mechanistic interpretability methods applied to reasoning traces, we find that reasoning models like DeepSeek-R1 and QwQ-32B exhibit much greater perspective diversity than instruction-tuned models, activating broader conflict between heterogeneous personality- and expertise-related features during reasoning. This multi-agent structure manifests in conversational behaviors, including question-answering, perspective shifts, and the reconciliation of conflicting views, and in socio-emotional roles that characterize sharp back-and-forth conversations, together accounting for the accuracy advantage in reasoning tasks. Controlled reinforcement learning experiments reveal that base models increase conversational behaviors when rewarded solely for reasoning accuracy, and fine-tuning models with conversational scaffolding accelerates reasoning improvement over base models. These findings indicate that the social organization of thought enables effective exploration of solution spaces. We suggest that reasoning models establish a computational parallel to collective intelligence in human groups, where diversity enables superior problem-solving when systematically structured, which suggests new opportunities for agent organization to harness the wisdom of crowds.

Yujin Potter, Shiyang Lai, Junsol Kim et al.

How could LLMs influence our democracy? We investigate LLMs' political leanings and the potential influence of LLMs on voters by conducting multiple experiments in a U.S. presidential election context. Through a voting simulation, we first demonstrate 18 open- and closed-weight LLMs' political preference for a Democratic nominee over a Republican nominee. We show how this leaning towards the Democratic nominee becomes more pronounced in instruction-tuned models compared to their base versions by analyzing their responses to candidate-policy related questions. We further explore the potential impact of LLMs on voter choice by conducting an experiment with 935 U.S. registered voters. During the experiments, participants interacted with LLMs (Claude-3, Llama-3, and GPT-4) over five exchanges. The experiment results show a shift in voter choices towards the Democratic nominee following LLM interaction, widening the voting margin from 0.7% to 4.6%, even though LLMs were not asked to persuade users to support the Democratic nominee during the discourse. This effect is larger than many previous studies on the persuasiveness of political campaigns, which have shown minimal effects in presidential elections. Many users also expressed a desire for further political interaction with LLMs. Which aspects of LLM interactions drove these shifts in voter choice requires further study. Lastly, we explore how a safety method can make LLMs more politically neutral, while raising the question of whether such neutrality is truly the path forward.

Junsol Kim, James Evans, Aaron Schein

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to generate text that realistically reflects a range of different subjective human perspectives. This paper studies how LLMs are seemingly able to reflect more liberal versus more conservative viewpoints among other political perspectives in American politics. We show that LLMs possess linear representations of political perspectives within activation space, wherein more similar perspectives are represented closer together. To do so, we probe the attention heads across the layers of three open transformer-based LLMs (Llama-2-7b-chat, Mistral-7b-instruct, Vicuna-7b). We first prompt models to generate text from the perspectives of different U.S. lawmakers. We then identify sets of attention heads whose activations linearly predict those lawmakers' DW-NOMINATE scores, a widely-used and validated measure of political ideology. We find that highly predictive heads are primarily located in the middle layers, often speculated to encode high-level concepts and tasks. Using probes only trained to predict lawmakers' ideology, we then show that the same probes can predict measures of news outlets' slant from the activations of models prompted to simulate text from those news outlets. These linear probes allow us to visualize, interpret, and monitor ideological stances implicitly adopted by an LLM as it generates open-ended responses. Finally, we demonstrate that by applying linear interventions to these attention heads, we can steer the model outputs toward a more liberal or conservative stance. Overall, our research suggests that LLMs possess a high-level linear representation of American political ideology and that by leveraging recent advances in mechanistic interpretability, we can identify, monitor, and steer the subjective perspective underlying generated text.

Shiyang Lai, Yujin Potter, Junsol Kim et al.

Large language model behavior is shaped by the language of those with whom they interact. This capacity and their increasing prevalence online portend that they will intentionally or unintentionally "program" one another and form emergent AI subjectivities, relationships, and collectives. Here, we call upon the research community to investigate these "societies" of interacting artificial intelligences to increase their rewards and reduce their risks for human society and the health of online environments. We use a small "community" of models and their evolving outputs to illustrate how such emergent, decentralized AI collectives can spontaneously expand the bounds of human diversity and reduce the risk of toxic, anti-social behavior online. Finally, we discuss opportunities for AI cross-moderation and address ethical issues and design challenges associated with creating and maintaining free-formed AI collectives.

Shiyang Lai, Junsol Kim, Nadav Kunievsky et al.

Current AI systems minimize risk by enforcing ideological neutrality, yet this may introduce automation bias by suppressing cognitive engagement in human decision-making. We conducted randomized trials with 2,500 participants to test whether culturally biased AI enhances human decision-making. Participants interacted with politically diverse GPT-4o variants on information evaluation tasks. Partisan AI assistants enhanced human performance, increased engagement, and reduced evaluative bias compared to non-biased counterparts, with amplified benefits when participants encountered opposing views. These gains carried a trust penalty: participants underappreciated biased AI and overcredited neutral systems. Exposing participants to two AIs whose biases flanked human perspectives closed the perception-performance gap. These findings complicate conventional wisdom about AI neutrality, suggesting that strategic integration of diverse cultural biases may foster improved and resilient human decision-making.

Junsol Kim, Byungkyu Lee

Large language models (LLMs) that produce human-like responses have begun to revolutionize research practices in the social sciences. We develop a novel methodological framework that fine-tunes LLMs with repeated cross-sectional surveys to incorporate the meaning of survey questions, individual beliefs, and temporal contexts for opinion prediction. We introduce two new emerging applications of the AI-augmented survey: retrodiction (i.e., predict year-level missing responses) and unasked opinion prediction (i.e., predict entirely missing responses). Among 3,110 binarized opinions from 68,846 Americans in the General Social Survey from 1972 to 2021, our models based on Alpaca-7b excel in retrodiction (AUC = 0.86 for personal opinion prediction, $ρ$ = 0.98 for public opinion prediction). These remarkable prediction capabilities allow us to fill in missing trends with high confidence and pinpoint when public attitudes changed, such as the rising support for same-sex marriage. On the other hand, our fine-tuned Alpaca-7b models show modest success in unasked opinion prediction (AUC = 0.73, $ρ$ = 0.67). We discuss practical constraints and ethical concerns regarding individual autonomy and privacy when using LLMs for opinion prediction. Our study demonstrates that LLMs and surveys can mutually enhance each other's capabilities: LLMs can broaden survey potential, while surveys can improve the alignment of LLMs.