Suyash Fulay

Suyash Fulay, William Brannon, Shrestha Mohanty et al. · mit

Language model alignment research often attempts to ensure that models are not only helpful and harmless, but also truthful and unbiased. However, optimizing these objectives simultaneously can obscure how improving one aspect might impact the others. In this work, we focus on analyzing the relationship between two concepts essential in both language model alignment and political science: truthfulness and political bias. We train reward models on various popular truthfulness datasets and subsequently evaluate their political bias. Our findings reveal that optimizing reward models for truthfulness on these datasets tends to result in a left-leaning political bias. We also find that existing open-source reward models (i.e., those trained on standard human preference datasets) already show a similar bias and that the bias is larger for larger models. These results raise important questions about the datasets used to represent truthfulness, potential limitations of aligning models to be both truthful and politically unbiased, and what language models capture about the relationship between truth and politics.

Suyash Fulay, Prerna Ravi, Emily Kubin et al.

AI is increasingly used to scale collective decision-making, but far less attention has been paid to how such systems can support procedural legitimacy, particularly the conditions shaping losers' consent: whether participants who do not get their preferred outcome still accept it as fair. We ask: (1) how can AI help ground collective decisions in participants' different experiences and beliefs, and (2) whether exposure to these experiences can increase trust, understanding, and social cohesion even when people disagree with the outcome. We built a system that uses a semi-structured AI interviewer to elicit personal experiences on policy topics and an interactive visualization that displays predicted policy support alongside those voiced experiences. In a randomized experiment (n = 181), interacting with the visualization increased perceived legitimacy, trust in outcomes, and understanding of others' perspectives, even though all participants encountered decisions that went against their stated preferences. Our hope is that the design and evaluation of this tool spurs future researchers to focus on how AI can help not only achieve scale and efficiency in democratic processes, but also increase trust and connection between participants.

William Brannon, Wonjune Kang, Suyash Fulay et al.

Learning on text-attributed graphs (TAGs), in which nodes are associated with one or more texts, has been the subject of much recent work. However, most approaches tend to make strong assumptions about the downstream task of interest, are reliant on hand-labeled data, or fail to equally balance the importance of both text and graph representations. In this work, we propose Contrastive Graph-Text pretraining (ConGraT), a general, self-supervised approach for jointly learning separate representations of texts and nodes in a TAG. Our method trains a language model (LM) and a graph neural network (GNN) to align their representations in a common latent space using a batch-wise contrastive learning objective inspired by CLIP. We further propose an extension to the CLIP objective that leverages graph structure to incorporate information about inter-node similarity. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ConGraT outperforms baselines on various downstream tasks, including node and text category classification, link prediction, and language modeling. Finally, we present an application of our method to community detection in social graphs, which enables finding more textually grounded communities, rather than purely graph-based ones. Code and certain datasets are available at https://github.com/wwbrannon/congrat.

Suyash Fulay, Prerna Ravi, Emily Kubin et al.

Deliberative democratic theory suggests that civic competence: the capacity to navigate disagreement, weigh competing values, and arrive at collective decisions is not innate but developed through practice. Yet opportunities to cultivate these skills remain limited, as traditional deliberative processes like citizens' assemblies reach only a small fraction of the population. We present Agora, an early-stage AI-powered platform that uses LLMs to organize authentic human voices on policy issues, helping users build consensus-finding skills by proposing and revising policy recommendations, hearing supporting and opposing perspectives, and receiving feedback on how policy changes affect predicted support. In a preliminary study with 44 university students, participants using the full interface (with access to voice explanations) reported higher levels of problem-solving skills, internal deliberation, and produced higher quality consensus statements compared to a control condition showing only aggregate support distributions. These initial findings point toward a promising direction for scaling civic education.

Suyash Fulay, Dimitra Dimitrakopoulou, Deb Roy

Deliberation is essential to well-functioning democracies, yet physical, economic, and social barriers often exclude certain groups, reducing representativeness and contributing to issues like group polarization. In this work, we explore the use of large language model (LLM) personas to introduce missing perspectives in policy deliberations. We develop and evaluate a tool that transcribes conversations in real-time and simulates input from relevant but absent stakeholders. We deploy this tool in a 19-person student citizens' assembly on campus sustainability. Participants and facilitators found that the tool was useful to spark new discussions and surfaced valuable perspectives they had not previously considered. However, they also raised skepticism about the ability of LLMs to accurately characterize the perspectives of different groups, especially ones that are already underrepresented. Overall, this case study highlights that while AI personas can usefully surface new perspectives and prompt discussion in deliberative settings, their successful deployment depends on clarifying their limitations and emphasizing that they complement rather than replace genuine participation.

Suyash Fulay, Jocelyn Zhu, Michiel Bakker

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising accuracy in predicting survey responses and policy preferences, which has increased interest in their potential to represent human interests in various domains. Most existing research has focused on "behavioral cloning", effectively evaluating how well models reproduce individuals' expressed preferences. Drawing on theories of political representation, we highlight an underexplored design trade-off: whether AI systems should act as delegates, mirroring expressed preferences, or as trustees, exercising judgment about what best serves an individual's interests. This trade-off is closely related to issues of LLM sycophancy, where models can encourage behavior or validate beliefs that may be aligned with a user's short-term preferences, but is detrimental to their long-term interests. Through a series of experiments simulating votes on various policy issues in the U.S. context, we apply a temporal utility framework that weighs short and long-term interests (simulating a trustee role) and compare voting outcomes to behavior-cloning models (simulating a delegate). We find that trustee-style predictions weighted toward long-term interests produce policy decisions that align more closely with expert consensus on well-understood issues, but also show greater bias toward models' default stances on topics lacking clear agreement. These findings reveal a fundamental trade-off in designing AI systems to represent human interests. Delegate models better preserve user autonomy but may diverge from well-supported policy positions, while trustee models can promote welfare on well-understood issues yet risk paternalism and bias on subjective topics.