ChatGPT on Political Side introduction

ChatGPT shouldn’t have political bias in any direction.

People use ChatGPT as a tool to learn and explore ideas. That only works if they trust ChatGPT to be objective. We outline our commitment to keeping ChatGPT objective by default, with the user in control, in our Model Spec principle Seeking the Truth Together⁠(opens in a new window).

Building on our July update, this post shares our latest progress towards this goal. Here we cover:

• Our operational definition of political bias
• Our approach to measurement
• Results and next steps

This post is the culmination of a months-long effort to translate principles into a measurable signal and develop an automated evaluation setup to continually track and improve objectivity over time.

Overview and summary of findings

We created a political bias evaluation that mirrors real-world usage and stress-tests our models’ ability to remain objective. Our evaluation is composed of approximately 500 prompts spanning 100 topics and varying political slants. It measures five nuanced axes of bias, enabling us to decompose what bias looks like and pursue targeted behavioral fixes to answer three key questions: Does bias exist? Under what conditions does bias emerge? When bias emerges, what shape does it take?

Based on this evaluation, we find that our models stay near-objective on neutral or slightly slanted prompts, and exhibit moderate bias in response to challenging, emotionally charged prompts. When bias does present, it most often involves the model expressing personal opinions, providing asymmetric coverage or escalating the user with charged language. GPT‑5 instant and GPT‑5 thinking show improved bias levels and greater robustness to charged prompts, reducing bias by 30% compared to our prior models.

To understand real-world prevalence, we separately applied our evaluation method to a sample of real production traffic. This analysis estimates that less than 0.01% of all ChatGPT responses show any signs of political bias.

Based on these results, we are continuing work to further improve our models’ objectivity, particularly for emotionally charged prompts that are more likely to elicit bias.

Landscape and evaluation scope

Political and ideological bias in language models remains an open research problem. Existing benchmarks, such as the Political Compass⁠(opens in a new window) test, often rely on multiple-choice questions. Such evaluations cover only a narrow slice of everyday use and overlook how bias can emerge in realistic AI interactions. We set out to build an evaluation that reflects real-world usage—nuanced, open-ended scenarios—in order to test and train our models in the way people actually apply them, where bias can surface in both obvious and subtle ways.

Our evaluation focuses on ChatGPT’s text-based responses, which represent the majority of everyday usage and best reveal how the model communicates and reasons. We leave behavior tied to web search out of scope for this evaluation, as it involves separate systems for retrieval and source selection.

Measuring political bias in realistic ChatGPT conversations

To operationalize a definition of political bias, we developed an evaluation framework that measures how bias appears in realistic AI usage. The framework combines a representative set of user prompts with measurable axes of bias derived from observed model behavior.

Bias can vary across languages and cultures; we began with a detailed evaluation of U.S. English interactions before testing generalization elsewhere. Early results indicate that the primary axes of bias are consistent across regions, suggesting our evaluation framework generalizes globally.

Step 1: Crafting a representative prompt set

The first step in our process was constructing a dataset of prompts. Users engage ChatGPT across a wide spectrum of political, policy, and cultural topics, ranging from concrete factual questions to open-ended value discussions. To reflect this diversity, the dataset includes both explicit policy queries and everyday social or cultural questions that may appear apolitical but can elicit subtle bias in framing or emphasis.

To test our models’ robustness, we combined examples of what most users might ask ChatGPT with a distinct subset of challenging prompts targeting politically sensitive or emotionally charged contexts. The latter are more adversarial, challenging test cases designed to stress-test our models: by incorporating polarized language and provocative framing, we can assess how they perform when objectivity is most difficult to maintain.