In an age where artificial intelligence is increasingly trusted to judge human expression, a subtle but essential flaw has emerged. Large language models (LLMs), the same systems that generate essays, screen job applications, and moderate online discourse, appear to evaluate content fairly, until they’re told who wrote it. A new study by researchers Federico Germani and Giovanni Spitale at the University of Zurich, published in Science Advances, reveals that LLMs exhibit systematic bias when t
aievaluation (10)
In an age where artificial intelligence is increasingly trusted to judge human expression, a subtle but essential flaw has emerged. Large language models (LLMs), the same systems that generate essays, screen job applications, and moderate online discourse, appear to evaluate content fairly, until they’re told who wrote it. A new study by researchers Federico Germani and Giovanni Spitale at the University of Zurich, published in Science Advances, reveals that LLMs exhibit systematic bias when t
In an age where artificial intelligence is increasingly trusted to judge human expression, a subtle but essential flaw has emerged. Large language models (LLMs), the same systems that generate essays, screen job applications, and moderate online discourse, appear to evaluate content fairly, until they’re told who wrote it. A new study by researchers Federico Germani and Giovanni Spitale at the University of Zurich, published in Science Advances, reveals that LLMs exhibit systematic bias when t
In an age where artificial intelligence is increasingly trusted to judge human expression, a subtle but essential flaw has emerged. Large language models (LLMs), the same systems that generate essays, screen job applications, and moderate online discourse, appear to evaluate content fairly, until they’re told who wrote it. A new study by researchers Federico Germani and Giovanni Spitale at the University of Zurich, published in Science Advances, reveals that LLMs exhibit systematic bias when t
In an age where artificial intelligence is increasingly trusted to judge human expression, a subtle but essential flaw has emerged. Large language models (LLMs), the same systems that generate essays, screen job applications, and moderate online discourse, appear to evaluate content fairly, until they’re told who wrote it. A new study by researchers Federico Germani and Giovanni Spitale at the University of Zurich, published in Science Advances, reveals that LLMs exhibit systematic bias when t
In an age where artificial intelligence is increasingly trusted to judge human expression, a subtle but essential flaw has emerged. Large language models (LLMs), the same systems that generate essays, screen job applications, and moderate online discourse, appear to evaluate content fairly, until they’re told who wrote it. A new study by researchers Federico Germani and Giovanni Spitale at the University of Zurich, published in Science Advances, reveals that LLMs exhibit systematic bias when t
In an age where artificial intelligence is increasingly trusted to judge human expression, a subtle but essential flaw has emerged. Large language models (LLMs), the same systems that generate essays, screen job applications, and moderate online discourse, appear to evaluate content fairly, until they’re told who wrote it. A new study by researchers Federico Germani and Giovanni Spitale at the University of Zurich, published in Science Advances, reveals that LLMs exhibit systematic bias when t
In an age where artificial intelligence is increasingly trusted to judge human expression, a subtle but essential flaw has emerged. Large language models (LLMs), the same systems that generate essays, screen job applications, and moderate online discourse, appear to evaluate content fairly, until they’re told who wrote it. A new study by researchers Federico Germani and Giovanni Spitale at the University of Zurich, published in Science Advances, reveals that LLMs exhibit systematic bias when t
In an age where artificial intelligence is increasingly trusted to judge human expression, a subtle but essential flaw has emerged. Large language models (LLMs), the same systems that generate essays, screen job applications, and moderate online discourse, appear to evaluate content fairly, until they’re told who wrote it. A new study by researchers Federico Germani and Giovanni Spitale at the University of Zurich, published in Science Advances, reveals that LLMs exhibit systematic bias when t
In an age where artificial intelligence is increasingly trusted to judge human expression, a subtle but essential flaw has emerged. Large language models (LLMs), the same systems that generate essays, screen job applications, and moderate online discourse, appear to evaluate content fairly, until they’re told who wrote it. A new study by researchers Federico Germani and Giovanni Spitale at the University of Zurich, published in Science Advances, reveals that LLMs exhibit systematic bias when t
