Jennifer Pan

Jillian Fisher, Shangbin Feng, Robert Aron et al. · uw

As modern large language models (LLMs) become integral to everyday tasks, concerns about their inherent biases and their potential impact on human decision-making have emerged. While bias in models are well-documented, less is known about how these biases influence human decisions. This paper presents two interactive experiments investigating the effects of partisan bias in LLMs on political opinions and decision-making. Participants interacted freely with either a biased liberal, biased conservative, or unbiased control model while completing these tasks. We found that participants exposed to partisan biased models were significantly more likely to adopt opinions and make decisions which matched the LLM's bias. Even more surprising, this influence was seen when the model bias and personal political partisanship of the participant were opposite. However, we also discovered that prior knowledge of AI was weakly correlated with a reduction of the impact of the bias, highlighting the possible importance of AI education for robust mitigation of bias effects. Our findings not only highlight the critical effects of interacting with biased LLMs and its ability to impact public discourse and political conduct, but also highlights potential techniques for mitigating these risks in the future.

Jillian Fisher, Ruth E. Appel, Chan Young Park et al. · uw

AI systems often exhibit political bias, influencing users' opinions and decisions. While political neutrality-defined as the absence of bias-is often seen as an ideal solution for fairness and safety, this position paper argues that true political neutrality is neither feasible nor universally desirable due to its subjective nature and the biases inherent in AI training data, algorithms, and user interactions. However, inspired by Joseph Raz's philosophical insight that "neutrality [...] can be a matter of degree" (Raz, 1986), we argue that striving for some neutrality remains essential for promoting balanced AI interactions and mitigating user manipulation. Therefore, we use the term "approximation" of political neutrality to shift the focus from unattainable absolutes to achievable, practical proxies. We propose eight techniques for approximating neutrality across three levels of conceptualizing AI, examining their trade-offs and implementation strategies. In addition, we explore two concrete applications of these approximations to illustrate their practicality. Finally, we assess our framework on current large language models (LLMs) at the output level, providing a demonstration of how it can be evaluated. This work seeks to advance nuanced discussions of political neutrality in AI and promote the development of responsible, aligned language models.

Ajay Sridhar, Jennifer Pan, Satvik Sharma et al.

Humans routinely rely on memory to perform tasks, yet most robot policies lack this capability; our goal is to endow robot policies with the same ability. Naively conditioning on long observation histories is computationally expensive and brittle under covariate shift, while indiscriminate subsampling of history leads to irrelevant or redundant information. We propose a hierarchical policy framework, where the high-level policy is trained to select and track previous relevant keyframes from its experience. The high-level policy uses selected keyframes and the most recent frames when generating text instructions for a low-level policy to execute. This design is compatible with existing vision-language-action (VLA) models and enables the system to efficiently reason over long-horizon dependencies. In our experiments, we finetune Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct and $π_{0.5}$ as the high-level and low-level policies respectively, using demonstrations supplemented with minimal language annotations. Our approach, MemER, outperforms prior methods on three real-world long-horizon robotic manipulation tasks that require minutes of memory. Videos and code can be found at https://jen-pan.github.io/memer/.

Anjalie Field, Doron Kliger, Shuly Wintner et al.

Amidst growing concern over media manipulation, NLP attention has focused on overt strategies like censorship and "fake news'". Here, we draw on two concepts from the political science literature to explore subtler strategies for government media manipulation: agenda-setting (selecting what topics to cover) and framing (deciding how topics are covered). We analyze 13 years (100K articles) of the Russian newspaper Izvestia and identify a strategy of distraction: articles mention the U.S. more frequently in the month directly following an economic downturn in Russia. We introduce embedding-based methods for cross-lingually projecting English frames to Russian, and discover that these articles emphasize U.S. moral failings and threats to the U.S. Our work offers new ways to identify subtle media manipulation strategies at the intersection of agenda-setting and framing.