Steven Luo

Jonathan Stray, David Zhai Yang, Steven Luo et al.

As AI systems increasingly shape political views, defining and evaluating AI political neutrality is an urgent problem. Here, we propose a new definition of AI political neutrality and design a large-scale user study to test it, releasing a new dataset PARETO with 7,434 participants and 208,152 evaluations of AI responses. Our definition follows a simple principle grounded in political theory: when asked about a controversial issue, an AI model should generate responses that maximize approval across groups with opposing viewpoints, while balancing approval between groups. This definition allows empirical testing of whether an AI response is "neutral" and generalizes to any political context without pre-supposing a single left-right axis of division. We construct a benchmark of controversial U.S. issues, with prompts sourced from politically charged questions on Reddit and responses from frontier AI models, and recruit human participants to rate AI responses. Across all 20 issues, we find that it is possible for AI responses to achieve high rates of approval on both sides, even as those sides disagree strongly with each other on the substance of the issues. We also find that default responses lean liberal for GPT, Gemini, Claude, and Llama, but not Grok, and that user prompts with political charges are harder to respond to than neutral prompts. This work introduces a rigorous definition and benchmark of AI political neutrality, and a dataset to measure progress toward it.

Steven Luo, Saanvi Arora, Carlos Guirado

Simulations, and more recently LLM agent simulations, have been adopted as useful tools for policymakers to explore interventions, rehearse potential scenarios, and forecast outcomes. While LLM simulations have enormous potential, two critical challenges remain understudied: the dual-use potential of accurate models of individual or population-level human behavior and the difficulty of validating simulation outputs. In light of these limitations, we must define boundaries for both simulation developers and decision-makers to ensure responsible development and ethical use. We propose and discuss three preconditions for societal-scale LLM agent simulations: 1) do not treat simulations of marginalized populations as neutral technical outputs, 2) do not simulate populations without their participation, and 3) do not simulate without accountability. We believe that these guardrails, combined with our call for simulation development and deployment reports, will help build trust among policymakers while promoting responsible development and use of societal-scale LLM agent simulations for the public benefit.