Politically Speaking: LLMs on Changing International Affairs
Xuenan Cao, Wai Kei Chung, Ye Zhao, and Lidia Mengyuan Zhou

TL;DR
This study empirically examines how large language models produce politically homogeneous outputs about Iran and China, revealing significant convergence despite role prompts and real-world changes, raising concerns about cultural homogenization.
Contribution
It provides empirical evidence on the extent of output convergence in LLMs regarding international politics, highlighting the models' tendency to produce homogenized discourse regardless of prompts.
Findings
LLMs produce highly homogeneous outputs about Iran and China.
Outputs remain unchanged across models despite real-world political shifts.
Homogeneity is consistent across different LLMs like GPT, Gemini, Claude, and DeepSeek.
Abstract
Ask your chatbot to impersonate an expert from Russia and an expert from US and query it on Chinese politics. How might the outputs differ? Or, to prepare ourselves for the worse, how might they converge? Scholars have raised concerns LLM based applications can homogenize cultures and flatten perspectives. But exactly how much does LLM generated outputs converge despite explicit different role assignment? This study provides empirical evidence to the above question. The critique centres on pretrained models regurgitating ossified political jargons used in the Western world when speaking about China, Iran, Russian, and US politics, despite changes in these countries happening daily or hourly. The experiments combine role-prompting and similarity metrics. The results show that AI generated discourses from four models about Iran and China are the most homogeneous and unchanging across all…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
