Lisa Korver

Lisa Korver, Tomo Lazovich, Sherief Reda

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly popular in educational settings, they raise important questions about the ethical implications of their use. Publicly available online chatbots are quickly improving in capability and accuracy leading to more widespread use, including among students looking for help with their homework. This makes it crucial to consider whether these models are aligned with educational standards. Because curriculum standards in the United States are set at the state level, they differ significantly in required content, emphasis, and narrative focus. In this work, we develop an LLM-based pipeline to identify variations in U.S. History curricula across states and evaluate the extent to which different LLMs reflect these state-specific curricular differences. In addition, we conduct controlled experiments that vary user personas by stating user attributes such as geographic location, grade level, gender and race to evaluate the sensitivity of LLM responses to user characteristics. We find that while models are able to adjust their presentation of historical topics, these shifts may come from the perceived political leanings of states and do not necessarily reflect actual curriculum content. Additionally, models successfully adapt to a student's grade level while showing minimal sensitivity to race or gender, suggesting they are capable of useful adaptation to student personas with limited demographic bias. Together, these findings highlight potential risks that open access to LLM chatbots may cause to student learning outcomes stemming from misalignment with state curriculum standards and highlight the need for more robust alignment techniques.

Lisa Korver, Mohamed Mostagir, Sherief Reda

As the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) spreads across various industries, there are increasing concerns about the potential for their misuse, especially in sensitive areas such as political discourse. Deliberately aligning LLMs with specific political ideologies, through prompt engineering or fine-tuning techniques, can be advantageous in use cases such as political campaigns, but requires careful consideration due to heightened risks of performance degradation, misinformation, or increased biased behavior. In this work, we propose a multi-dimensional framework inspired by Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action to audit politically aligned language models across four dimensions: effectiveness, fairness, truthfulness, and persuasiveness using automated, quantitative metrics. Applying this to nine popular LLMs aligned via fine-tuning or role-playing revealed consistent trade-offs: while larger models tend to be more effective at role-playing political ideologies and truthful in their responses, they were also less fair, exhibiting higher levels of bias in the form of angry and toxic language towards people of different ideologies. Fine-tuned models exhibited lower bias and more effective alignment than the corresponding role-playing models, but also saw a decline in performance reasoning tasks and an increase in hallucinations. Overall, all of the models tested exhibited some deficiency in at least one of the four metrics, highlighting the need for more balanced and robust alignment strategies. Ultimately, this work aims to ensure politically-aligned LLMs generate legitimate, harmless arguments, offering a framework to evaluate the responsible political alignment of these models.