Jonathan Stray

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.

Nanna Inie, Jonathan Stray, Leon Derczynski · uw

Engaging in the deliberate generation of abnormal outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) by attacking them is a novel human activity. This paper presents a thorough exposition of how and why people perform such attacks, defining LLM red-teaming based on extensive and diverse evidence. Using a formal qualitative methodology, we interviewed dozens of practitioners from a broad range of backgrounds, all contributors to this novel work of attempting to cause LLMs to fail. We focused on the research questions of defining LLM red teaming, uncovering the motivations and goals for performing the activity, and characterizing the strategies people use when attacking LLMs. Based on the data, LLM red teaming is defined as a limit-seeking, non-malicious, manual activity, which depends highly on a team-effort and an alchemist mindset. It is highly intrinsically motivated by curiosity, fun, and to some degrees by concerns for various harms of deploying LLMs. We identify a taxonomy of 12 strategies and 35 different techniques of attacking LLMs. These findings are presented as a comprehensive grounded theory of how and why people attack large language models: LLM red teaming.

Jonathan Stray, Ian Baker, George Beknazar-Yuzbashev et al. · uw

We report the first direct comparisons of multiple alternative social media algorithms on multiple platforms on outcomes of societal interest. We used a browser extension to modify which posts were shown to desktop social media users, randomly assigning 9,386 users to a control group or one of five alternative ranking algorithms which simultaneously altered content across three platforms for six months during the US 2024 presidential election. This reduced our preregistered index of affective polarization by an average of 0.03 standard deviations (p < 0.05), including a 1.5 degree decrease in differences between the 100 point inparty and outparty feeling thermometers. We saw reductions in active use time for Facebook (-0.37 min/day) and Reddit (-0.2 min/day), but an increase of 0.32 min/day (p < 0.01) for X/Twitter. We saw an increase in reports of negative social media experiences but found no effects on well-being, news knowledge, outgroup empathy, perceptions of and support for partisan violence. This implies that bridging content can improve some societal outcomes without necessarily conflicting with the engagement-driven business model of social media.

Beth Goldberg, Diana Acosta-Navas, Michiel Bakker et al.

Two substantial technological advances have reshaped the public square in recent decades: first with the advent of the internet and second with the recent introduction of large language models (LLMs). LLMs offer opportunities for a paradigm shift towards more decentralized, participatory online spaces that can be used to facilitate deliberative dialogues at scale, but also create risks of exacerbating societal schisms. Here, we explore four applications of LLMs to improve digital public squares: collective dialogue systems, bridging systems, community moderation, and proof-of-humanity systems. Building on the input from over 70 civil society experts and technologists, we argue that LLMs both afford promising opportunities to shift the paradigm for conversations at scale and pose distinct risks for digital public squares. We lay out an agenda for future research and investments in AI that will strengthen digital public squares and safeguard against potential misuses of AI.

Jonathan Stray, Ivan Vendrov, Jeremy Nixon et al.

We describe cases where real recommender systems were modified in the service of various human values such as diversity, fairness, well-being, time well spent, and factual accuracy. From this we identify the current practice of values engineering: the creation of classifiers from human-created data with value-based labels. This has worked in practice for a variety of issues, but problems are addressed one at a time, and users and other stakeholders have seldom been involved. Instead, we look to AI alignment work for approaches that could learn complex values directly from stakeholders, and identify four major directions: useful measures of alignment, participatory design and operation, interactive value learning, and informed deliberative judgments.

Jonathan Stray

Polarization is implicated in the erosion of democracy and the progression to violence, which makes the polarization properties of large algorithmic content selection systems (recommender systems) a matter of concern for peace and security. While algorithm-driven social media does not seem to be a primary driver of polarization at the country level, it could be a useful intervention point in polarized societies. This paper examines algorithmic depolarization interventions with the goal of conflict transformation: not suppressing or eliminating conflict but moving towards more constructive conflict. Algorithmic intervention is considered at three stages: which content is available (moderation), how content is selected and personalized (ranking), and content presentation and controls (user interface). Empirical studies of online conflict suggest that the exposure diversity intervention proposed as an antidote to "filter bubbles" can be improved and can even worsen polarization under some conditions. Using civility metrics in conjunction with diversity in content selection may be more effective. However, diversity-based interventions have not been tested at scale and may not work in the diverse and dynamic contexts of real platforms. Instead, intervening in platform polarization dynamics will likely require continuous monitoring of polarization metrics, such as the widely used "feeling thermometer." These metrics can be used to evaluate product features, and potentially engineered as algorithmic objectives. It may further prove necessary to include polarization measures in the objective functions of recommender algorithms to prevent optimization processes from creating conflict as a side effect.