Robert Graham, Edward Stevinson, Yariv Barsheshat
Finetuning language models on small, curated datasets is standard practice for adapting them to specific policies or domains. We show that finetuning on narrow, factually-defensible, moderation-passing data can cause broad ideological shifts across unrelated domains, while preserving general capabilities. Training GPT-4.1 on right- or left-leaning economics Q&A yields matched ideological shifts on topics such as criminal justice, the environment, and cultural taste. The same effect appears with plausibly-deployed datasets such as workplace HR policy and practical finance queries, as well as on a science-pseudoscience axis where food-safety finetuning increases sycophantic agreement with users expressing false health beliefs. We call this phenomenon ideological generalisation and propose a methodology to measure two properties: breadth, how far the shift reaches across topics absent from training, and amplification, how much finetuning intensifies the shift relative to few-shot prompting on the same examples. We show that few-shot prompting indicates the direction of generalisation but finetuning pushes the model to further extremes, including to far out-of-distribution outputs such as endorsements of race-IQ connections and political violence. The effect replicates on Gemma-3, holds under judge-free evaluations and external benchmarks, survives mixing with generic data, and leaves GSM8K accuracy within $\pm 1$pp of the baseline.