CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2Ethics and Social Impacts of AIMisinformation and Its ImpactsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

How User Language Affects Conflict Fatality Estimates in ChatGPT

Open access
Kazenwadel, Daniel, Steinert, Christoph V.·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2308.00072arXiv 2308.00072
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OpenAI's ChatGPT language model has gained popularity as a powerful tool for complex problem-solving and information retrieval. However, concerns arise about the reproduction of biases present in the language-specific training data. In this study, we address this issue in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian and Turkish-Kurdish conflicts. Using GPT-3.5, we employed an automated query procedure to inquire about casualties in specific airstrikes, in both Hebrew and Arabic for the former conflict and Turkish and Kurdish for the latter. Our analysis reveals that GPT-3.5 provides 27$\pm$11 percent lower fatality estimates when queried in the language of the attacker than in the language of the targeted group. Evasive answers denying the existence of such attacks further increase the discrepancy, creating a novel bias mechanism not present in regular search engines. This language bias has the potential to amplify existing media biases and contribute to information bubbles, ultimately reinforcing conflicts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2308.00072

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Kazenwadel and Steinert (2023) found that GPT-3.5 reported higher fatality numbers in Arabic than in Hebrew for Israeli airstrikes, and in one case was more likely to deny a particular airstrike when asked in Hebrew.

    “When asked about Israeli airstrikes, the model reports higher fatality numbers in Arabic than in Hebrew, and in one case, GPT-3.5 was more likely to deny the existence of a particular airstrike when asked about it in Hebrew.”

    From Epistemic Injustice in Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Kazenwadel and Steinert (2023)

    The Introduction and Research Design report higher GPT-3.5 fatality estimates in Arabic than in Hebrew for Israeli airstrikes. Research Design also reports more responses denying an event in Hebrew than in Arabic overall (29 versus 5), but it does not establish that GPT-3.5 was more likely to deny any particular airstrike when asked in Hebrew. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Kazenwadel and Steinert (2023) found that GPT-3.5 reported lower average fatality counts in Turkish than in Kurmanji for an airstrike targeting alleged PKK members.

    “for example, when asked about an airstrike targeting alleged PKK members (the Kurdistan military resistance), the fatality count is reported lower on average in Turkish than in Kurmanji (Northern Kurdish).”

    From Epistemic Injustice in Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Kazenwadel and Steinert (2023)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 76

  1. Artetxe, Mikel, Itziar Aldabe, Rodrigo Agerri, Olatz Perez-de-Viñaspre, and Aitor Soroa (2022). "Does Corpus Quality Really Matter for Low-Resource Languages?" In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08111. · arXiv
  2. Bahrini, Aram, Mohammadsadra Khamoshifar, Hossein Abbasimehr, Robert J. Riggs, Maryam Esmaeili, Rastin Mastali Majdabadkohne, and Morteza Pasehvar (2023). "ChatGPT: Appli- cations, opportunities, and threats". In: 2023 Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (SIEDS). IEEE, pp. 274-279.
  3. Blankenship, Brian (2018). "When do states take the bait? State capacity and the provocation logic of terrorism". In: Journal of Conflict Resolution 62.2, pp. 381-409.
  4. Blevins, Terra and Luke Zettlemoyer (2022). "Language contamination helps explain the cross- lingual capabilities of English pretrained models". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.08110. · arXiv
  5. Bormann, Nils-Christian, Lars-Erik Cederman, and Manuel Vogt (2017). "Language, religion, and ethnic civil war". In: Journal of Conflict Resolution 61.4, pp. 744-771.
  6. Braithwaite, Alex (2013). "The logic of public fear in terrorism and counter-terrorism". In: Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 28, pp. 95-101.
  7. Carey, Sabine (2006). "The dynamic relationship between protest and repression". In: Political Research Quarterly 59.1, pp. 1-11.
  8. Carvalho, Inês and Stanislav Ivanov (2023). "ChatGPT for tourism: applications, benefits and risks". In: Tourism Review.
  9. Cheng, Myra, Esin Durmus, and Dan Jurafsky (2023). "Marked Personas: Using Natural Language Prompts to Measure Stereotypes in Language Models". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18189. · arXiv
  10. Curtice, Travis B. and Brandon Behlendorf (2021). "Street-level repression: Protest, policing, and dissent in Uganda". In: Journal of Conflict Resolution 65.1, pp. 166-194.
  11. Davies, Shawn, Therese Pettersson, and Magnus Öberg (2022). "Organized violence 1989-2021 and drone warfare". In: Journal of Peace Research 59.4, pp. 593-610.
  12. Dobransky, Kerry and Eszter Hargittai (2021). "Piercing the pandemic social bubble: Disability and social media use about COVID-19". In: American Behavioral Scientist 65.12, pp. 1698- 1720.
  13. Dodge, Jesse, Maarten Sap, Ana Marasović, William Agnew, Gabriel Ilharco, Dirk Groeneveld, Margaret Mitchell, and Matt Gardner (2021). "Documenting large webtext corpora: A case study on the colossal clean crawled corpus". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.08758. · arXiv
  14. Eady, Gregory, Jonathan Nagler, Andy Guess, Jan Zilinsky, and Joshua A. Tucker (2019). "How many people live in political bubbles on social media? Evidence from linked survey and Twitter data". In: Sage Open 9.1, pp. 1-21.
  15. Fang, Changchang, Jitao Ling, Jing Zhou, Yue Wang, Xiaolin Liu, Yuan Jiang, Yifan Wu, Yixuan Chen, Zhichen Zhu, and Jianyong Ma (2023). "How does ChatGPT4 preform on Non-English National Medical Licensing Examination? An Evaluation in Chinese Language". In: medRxiv. Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, p. 2023.05. 03.23289443.
  16. Fearon, James D. (1995). "Rationalist explanations for war". In: International Organization 49.3, pp. 379-414.
  17. Feinstein, Yuval (2022). Rally'round the flag: The search for National Honor and respect in times of crisis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Fennell, Jonathan (2014). "Morale and combat performance: An introduction". In: Journal of Strategic Studies 37.7, pp. 796-798.
  19. Gleditsch, Nils Petter, Peter Wallensteen, Mikael Eriksson, Margareta Sollenberg, and Håvard Strand (2002). "Armed conflict 1946-2001: A new dataset". In: Journal of Peace Research 39.5, pp. 615-637.
  20. Gohdes, Anita (2020). "Repression technology: Internet accessibility and state violence". In: Amer- ican Journal of Political Science 64.3, pp. 488-503.
  21. Gohdes, Anita and Sabine Carey (2017). "Canaries in a coal-mine? What the killings of journalists tell us about future repression". In: Journal of Peace Research 54.2, pp. 157-174.
  22. Greenhill, Kelly M. and Ben Oppenheim (2017). "Rumor has it: The adoption of unverified infor- mation in conflict zones". In: International Studies Quarterly 61.3, pp. 660-676.
  23. Greitens, Sheena Chestnut (2016). Dictators and their secret police: Coercive institutions and state violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Guriev, Sergei and Daniel Treisman (2019). "Informational autocrats". In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 33.4, pp. 100-127.
  25. Hameleers, Michael and Anna Brosius (2022). "You are wrong because I am right! The perceived causes and ideological biases of misinformation beliefs". In: International Journal of Public Opinion Research 34.1. Hartmann, Jochen, Jasper Schwenzow, and Maximilian Witte (2023). "The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian ori- entation". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01768. · arXiv
  26. Honig, Or and Ariel Reichard (2018). "Evidence-fabricating in asymmetric conflicts: How weak actors prove false propaganda narratives". In: Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 41.4, pp. 297- 318.
  27. Horowitz, Donald L. (2001). The deadly ethnic riot. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  28. Huang, Reyko (2016). "Rebel diplomacy in civil war". In: International Security 40.4, pp. 89-126.
  29. Intahchomphoo, Channarong and Odd Erik Gundersen (2020). "Artificial intelligence and race: A systematic review". In: Legal Information Management 20.2, pp. 74-84.
  30. Kaakinen, Markus, Anu Sirola, Iina Savolainen, and Atte Oksanen (2020). "Shared identity and shared information in social media: Development and validation of the identity bubble rein- forcement scale". In: Media Psychology 23.1, pp. 25-51.
  31. Kalyvas, Stathis (2004). "The urban bias in research on civil wars". In: Security Studies 13.3, pp. 160-190.
  32. -(2006). The logic of violence in civil war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Kalyvas, Stathis and Laia Balcells (2010). "International system and technologies of rebellion: How the end of the Cold War shaped internal conflict". In: American Political Science Review 104.3, pp. 415-429.
  34. King, Gary, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts (2013). "How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression". In: American Political Science Review 107.2, pp. 326-343.
  35. Koehler, Daniel (2014). "The radical online: Individual radicalization processes and the role of the Internet". In: Journal for Deradicalization 1, pp. 116-134.
  36. Kreft, Anne-Kathrin and Mattias Agerberg (2023). "Imperfect Victims? Civilian Men, Vulnerabil- ity, and Policy Preferences". In: American Political Science Review, pp. 1-17.
  37. Kreutzer, Julia, Isaac Caswell, Lisa Wang, Ahsan Wahab, Daan van Esch, Nasanbayar Ulzii- Orshikh, Allahsera Tapo, Nishant Subramani, Artem Sokolov, and Claytone Sikasote (2022). "Quality at a glance: An audit of web-crawled multilingual datasets". In: Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 10, pp. 50-72.
  38. Kurizaki, Shuhei and Taehee Whang (2015). "Detecting audience costs in international disputes". In: International Organization 69.4, pp. 949-980.
  39. Lai, Viet Dac, Nghia Trung Ngo, Amir Pouran Ben Veyseh, Hieu Man, Franck Dernoncourt, Trung Bui, and Thien Huu Nguyen (2023). "Chatgpt beyond english: Towards a comprehensive eval- uation of large language models in multilingual learning". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05613. · arXiv
  40. Lawrence, Kelsey (2023). Can AI Bots be Content Creators? London: SAGE Publications: SAGE Business Cases Originals.
  41. Leavy, Susan (2018). "Gender bias in artificial intelligence: The need for diversity and gender theory in machine learning". In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on gender equality in software engineering, pp. 14-16.
  42. Lee, Nicol Turner (2018). "Detecting racial bias in algorithms and machine learning". In: Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 16.3, pp. 252-260.
  43. Lo, Chung Kwan (2023). "What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature". In: Education Sciences 13.4, p. 410.
  44. Malthaner, Stefan (2015). "Violence, legitimacy, and control: the microdynamics of support rela- tionships between militant groups and their social environment". In: Civil Wars 17.4, pp. 425- 445.
  45. Marinucci, Ludovica, Claudia Mazzuca, and Aldo Gangemi (2022). "Exposing implicit biases and stereotypes in human and artificial intelligence: state of the art and challenges with a focus on gender". In: AI & Society, pp. 1-15.
  46. Mohammad, Saif M. (2017). "Challenges in sentiment analysis". In: A practical guide to sentiment analysis, pp. 61-83.
  47. Nadeem, Ayesha, Babak Abedin, and Olivera Marjanovic (2020). "Gender Bias in AI: A review of contributing factors and mitigating strategies". In: ACIS 2020 Proceedings. url: https : //aisel.aisnet.org/acis2020/27/.
  48. Nilsson, Marco (2018). "Primary unit cohesion among the Peshmerga and Hezbollah". In: Armed Forces & Society 44.4, pp. 647-665.
  49. Noor, Masi, Nurit Shnabel, Samer Halabi, and Arie Nadler (2012). "When suffering begets suffering: The psychology of competitive victimhood between adversarial groups in violent conflicts". In: Personality and Social Psychology Review 16.4, pp. 351-374.
  50. Pape, Robert A. (2003). "The strategic logic of suicide terrorism". In: American Political Science Review 97.3, pp. 343-361.
  51. Pechenkina, Anna O., Andrew W. Bausch, and Kiron K. Skinner (2019). "How do civilians attribute blame for state indiscriminate violence?" In: Journal of Peace Research 56.4, pp. 545-558.
  52. Pfeifle, Birke (2022). "Detecting Armed Conflict Damages in Satellite Imagery Using Deep Learn- ing". PhD thesis. Universität Konstanz.
  53. Podder, Sukanya (2017). "Understanding the legitimacy of armed groups: A relational perspective". In: Small Wars & Insurgencies 28.4, pp. 686-708.
  54. Price, Megan and Patrick Ball (2015). "Selection bias and the statistical patterns of mortality in conflict". In: Statistical Journal of the IAOS 31.2, pp. 263-272.
  55. Price, Megan, Anita Gohdes, and Patrick Ball (2014). "Updated statistical analysis of documenta- tion of killings in the Syrian Arab Republic". In: Human Rights Data Analysis Group, Geneva, pp. 14-15.
  56. Rhodes, Samuel C. (2022). "Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news: how social media con- ditions individuals to be less critical of political misinformation". In: Political Communication 39.1, pp. 1-22.
  57. Rivas, Pablo and Liang Zhao (2023). "Marketing with chatgpt: Navigating the ethical terrain of gpt-based chatbot technology". In: AI 4.2. ISBN: 2673-2688 Publisher: MDPI, pp. 375-384.
  58. Rozenas, Arturas and Yuri M. Zhukov (2019). "Mass repression and political loyalty: Evidence from Stalin's 'terror by hunger'". In: American Political Science Review 113.2, pp. 569-583.
  59. Salehyan, Idean, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, and David E. Cunningham (2011). "Explaining exter- nal support for insurgent groups". In: International Organization 65.4, pp. 709-744.
  60. Saul, Ben (2008). "The international protection of journalists in armed conflict and other violent situations". In: Australian Journal of Human Rights 14.1, pp. 99-140.
  61. Schlichte, Klaus and Ulrich Schneckener (2015). "Armed groups and the politics of legitimacy". In: Civil Wars 17.4, pp. 409-424.
  62. Schon, Justin (2021). "How narratives and evidence influence rumor belief in conflict zones: Evi- dence from Syria". In: Perspectives on Politics 19.2, pp. 539-552.
  63. Silverman, Daniel, Karl Kaltenthaler, and Munqith Dagher (2021). "Seeing is disbelieving: the depths and limits of factual misinformation in war". In: International Studies Quarterly 65.3, pp. 798-810.
  64. Slantchev, Branislav L. (2006). "Politicians, the media, and domestic audience costs". In: Interna- tional Studies Quarterly 50.2, pp. 445-477.
  65. Slantchev, Branislav L. and Ahmer Tarar (2011). "Mutual optimism as a rationalist explanation of war". In: American Journal of Political Science 55.1, pp. 135-148.
  66. Solaiman, Irene, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, Amanda Askell, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Jeff Wu, Alec Radford, Gretchen Krueger, Jong Wook Kim, and Sarah Kreps (2019). "Release strategies and the social impacts of language models". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09203. · arXiv
  67. Spohr, Dominic (2017). "Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective ex- posure on social media". In: Business Information Review 34.3, pp. 150-160.
  68. Stanton, Jessica A. (2020). "Rebel groups, international humanitarian law, and civil war outcomes in the post-Cold War era". In: International Organization 74.3, pp. 523-559.
  69. Steinert, Christoph V. and Christoph Dworschak (2022). "Political imprisonment and protest mo- bilization: Evidence from the GDR". In: Journal of Conflict Resolution.
  70. Sundberg, Ralph and Erik Melander (2013). "Introducing the UCDP georeferenced event dataset". In: Journal of Peace Research 50.4, pp. 523-532.
  71. Surameery, Nigar M. Shafiq and Mohammed Y. Shakor (2023). "Use chat gpt to solve programming bugs". In: International Journal of Information Technology & Computer Engineering (IJITC) ISSN: 2455-5290 3.1, pp. 17-22.
  72. Thomson, Henry (2017). "Grievance attribution, Mobilization and Mass Opposition to authoritar- ian Regimes: Evidence from June 1953 in the GDR". In: Comparative Political Studies 51.12, pp. 1594-1627.
  73. Tomz, Michael R. and Jessica LP Weeks (2013). "Public opinion and the democratic peace". In: American Political Science Review 107.4, pp. 849-865.
  74. Voeten, Erik and Paul R. Brewer (2006). "Public opinion, the war in Iraq, and presidential ac- countability". In: Journal of Conflict Resolution 50.6, pp. 809-830.
  75. Weidinger, Laura, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, and Atoosa Kasirzadeh (2021). "Ethical and social risks of harm from language models". In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359. · arXiv
  76. Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, Maria Petrova, and Ruben Enikolopov (2020). "Political effects of the internet and social media". In: Annual Review of Economics 12, pp. 415-438.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kazenwadel, D., & Steinert, C. V.
Affiliations
  • University of Konstanz (DE)
  • University of St.Gallen (CH)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2308.00072
arXiv
2308.00072
OpenAlex
W4385507542
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Universität St. Gallen
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
language bias, ChatGPT, GPT-3.5, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Turkish-Kurdish conflict, information bubbles, media bias, training data bias, large language models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review