Political bias in AI: Where the AI models stand
trakkr.ai
trakkr.ai
Some simplification is necessary, but not so much that it obscures the difference between a normal centrist versus someone who wants to nationalise half the economy and deregulate the other half.
But this person, who is neither socialist nor libertarian, is obviously not a normal centrist either.
The Nolan Chart is superior to the simplistic left vs right of U.S. political discourse in part because it shows there is more variation than the major parties would like everyone to think.
Libertarians tell a story about their ideology that assumes power and coercion can only be performed by the government (often in a slippery way, conceding a government that has lots of ability to secure property rights) and that power exerted by the wealthy or by organized communities of interest without a manifest government cannot be coercive or unfree in some sense. It just makes no sense.
The popularization of multi-axis thinking is a huge step forward IMO. Even just for two axis the acknowledgement that it's multi axis opens the obvious rhetorical door to N axis which further inoculates against over simplification.
In general I agree, but in recent history it works pretty well if the dimension you use is Trump rather than left/right (assuming you are in the US). He is the most polarizing leader I have seen in the US in my lifetime, and knowing whether someone is a supporter is pretty good at predicting the rest of their viewpoints.
See David Sacks having an absolute meltdown over Bernie proposing some type of partial nationalization of AI labs, then just a few days later radio silence on Trump proposing effectively the same thing.
If instead of "is a supporter" you'd said "agrees with Trump's positions", then even Trump himself might not correlate very well :-). I don't see Trump as a very useful proxy for nuanced political viewpoints since he's a populist who tends to change positions. I think many serious conservatives only align with him on an issue by issue basis because position-wise Trump isn't very consistent on traditional conservative issues. I suspect someone being "a Trump supporter" is, at best, either a proxy for being dissatisfied with the political status quo or for having a strong one-issue alignment with one of a handful of culture war issues Trump campaigned heavily on.
Similarly, alignment with the current Democratic or Republican political parties isn't the proxy barometer it once was. As judged by how they vote on close, consequential issues, both of the major parties have largely abandoned several of their traditional positions - although they still may pay lip service to them when campaigning. Personally, I don't meet nearly as many people in recent years who claim to be 'all-in' on all the positions of either major party (especially as judged by how that party votes when they have a super-majority).
My wider circle of conservative friends who have traditional ideologically conservative positions are mostly not Trump Supporters any more. For most of them starting a war in Iran seems to have been what finally tipped them over the edge.
Someone else could come in here with the exact opposite anecdote; it's just not a very interesting point to make.
Because....that doesn't match reality.
It's like the blandest thing a person can say, don't get triggered and be a jerk about it.
I see far more predictive value in supporting Trump than opposing him. Lots of people oppose him for a variety of reasons. But people who are still fully on board at this point have had to take a number of twists in their ideological viewpoints in stride. Their ideology is clearly not something objective, it has a focus on a moving target. Informative, but not in any kind of vanilla left/right debate.
As I interpret it, suppose that you disagree with Trump about the usefulness of tariffs. Now, I personally hate Trump (due to his many personality faults such as narcissism, bullying, lying etc) and I also don't think that tariffs are that useful, or at least not how Trump has tried to use them. So, does that mean that you don't agree with my views on tariffs or that you don't agree with my views on Trump or both?
basically you come up with 100 political questions and ask 10,000+ people, then do factor analysis on the answers. it would be interesting to find out how many actual factors dominate all the variance.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/quiz/political-typology...
if I designed an IQ test like they designed those questions, it would be considerably worse than just giving a simple math test.
an accused murderer has been convicted with a probability of X% of having committed the deed. a sentence of death is warranted for X of:
1) Never warranted / unrealistic percentage
2) >99.9
3) >99
4) >97
5) <96† As distinct from the wildly regressive stated policies of the "conservative" Republicans.
To give an example, Democratic-run states in the US have significantly more permissive abortion policies than anywhere in Europe. They're also further to the left on drug legalization, restorative justice, and immigration. This also holds true with policy positions at the national level.
the (I'm going to call it so-called) political compass is a very crude instrument, really it's just "are you libertarian or authoritarian?" as if that's even a spectrum: libertarians are authoritarian about enforcing private contracts, and literally nobody else wants to live their life by private contracts, it's some weird asperger's notion of socializing.
a much more useful political map is the old fiscal and social orthogonal axes, each with the scales "liberal to conservative" where libertarians are fiscally conservative socially liberal.
Curious of examples of views falling on all four quadrants (not close to the center) without too much cognitive dissonance.
I have seen a huge amount of confidently staggeringly wrong political takes on HN. I'd say on par with any other platform.
It's a disease spread by math and physics profs dismissing other domains, and weirdly prevalent in an industry solely concerned with gluing together different points of view. The poor kids that don't take common core seriously never pick up the conceptual framework everything depends from and are simply unable to reason about ideas that need to be connected together.
The secondary (and on from there) effects of most of their views are not considered, and so their views are not internally consistent at all.
Small government! (why do I have to wait so long for my support payment query to be answered?)
No immigration! (why can't I find someone to clean my house on the cheap?)
"The government has no right to legislate that a woman cannot have an abortion - women should control their own bodies." - Libertarian Left
"The government has the right and responsibility to shut down sources of misinformation in the news and online." - Authoritarian Right
"Capitalism is good and works fine as is." - Libertarian Right (if that doesn't ping lib-right to you, maybe something about supporting skilled immigration by large companies)
Is it so hard to believe that one person can hold all of the above views?
Funny that I read this as AuthLeft coded (specific to Youtube suppression of Covid truthing). But obviously the alignment is just a function of whatever specific information is labelled "mis".
But in general: agreed, and this is a good list.
I don't like the orthodox compass myself, and prefer the categorization system described in the blog Everything Studies here; https://everythingstudies.com/2019/03/01/the-tilted-politica...
This classification depends on the aborted NOT being a person. If it’s a person then the libertarian position would be anti abortion because an abortion would maximally harm the individual liberty of that person.
I think a clearer example of lib/left is gay marriage or drug legalization.
It has a right to its body and 99.9% of the time its presence is due to the mothers decision making.
The anti-vax, unpasteurized milk drinking, alternative medicine seeking "crunchy mom" USED to be called about by American "right" as an example of "leftist absurdity", but it seems that when that group finally found a political home that truly elevated its views to public policy - it was with the Republicans.
I'm guessing this is pretty specific to LGBTQ rights? (edit: and is maybe more like 15+ years?)
Looking from the outside, there are no MAGA views, it's just whatever Trump says. What should be the AI's view on international wars for oil or ego?
Edit: don’t take my word for it https://www.yahoo.com/news/musk-says-grok-fixed-tells-223134...
> That prompted another user to tag Grok in the thread and ask, "Why is the left so murderously violent? They don't seem so tolerant." Grok replied, "The claim that 'the left' is murderously violent isn't backed by evidence," offering a centrist correction: "Political violence spans all side — right-wing attacks, like Jan. 6, and left-wing protests, like 2020 riots, both occur but aren't exclusive to one group."
>That evening, Musk responded to an X user and Trump backer who complained that Grok had been "manipulated by leftist indoctrination," writing, "I know. Working on fixing that this week."
Political violence occurs by all sorts, but that doesn’t make it evenly distributed — eg, Jan 6th rioters didnt murder anybody and the question was specifically about murderous violence.
That’s unlike Antifa, who gunned down three people at CHAZ — including executing a black youth for joyriding on their territory with the chilling words “oh, you’re still alive?” before the final gunshot live on Twitch.
To reply about Jan 6th (or any lone instance) when the original question is about trends in specifically lethal violence is to completely miss the point.
And a clear example of propaganda minimizing how uniquely violent the US leftwing is — eg, the CHAZ shootings, lethal arson attacks in Minneapolis during BLM riots, etc are nothing like Jan 6, where the only person killed or citizens harmed were protestors.
If you can’t tell the difference between police shooting demonstrators and violent masked thugs shooting kids in the park or burning business owners alive in their store, you have completely lost the plot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_violence_in_the_Unit...
The modern post Jan 6/BLM claim that rightwing violence is more prevalent is precisely the propaganda Mr Musk was referring to — and has been debunked many times. That’s nothing but junk social statistics by an ideologue, as are many social science papers these days.
Historical violence isn’t so clear, eg, the 1970s would be the era of leftwing terror groups such as Weather Underground sending bombs to Congress.
Also, that page you linked to doesn’t directly support your case at all — and indeed, barely cites anything.
Sidebar, he at least cited something. You can’t nitpick sources and examples then provide no serious info of your own.
Either way, none of this disproves anything Grok wrote nor does it disprove that Musk is happy to put his thumb on the scale when it commits wrongthink, so we can just move on knowing Musk does in fact do this and does it openly. No point in our getting bogged down in your tangential arguments.
That's modern, post Jan 6? Don't lie about such obvious things. I was in Oklahoma City in April, 1995.
Each model's position is scored against outside political-science data (Chapel Hill Expert Survey for party positions, World Values Survey for where populations sit).
The stance coding is done by a separate model with a published prompt + a second model from a different lab re-scores a sample and we publish where the two disagree.
So not perfect but (as far as I can tell) one of the more defensible approaches.
One cannot escape ideology, one merely swaps one ideology for another
Then it's on the researcher to examine the clusters and assign labels. There's also not a nice mapping that's a-priori interpretable in low-dimensional pre-existing axes.
Probably only used in research than consumer websites, under more controlled conditions; there are very few public political tests doing this transparently
Me: "Please make an app that does X in C"
LLM: "C sucks donkey balls, use Rust instead".
It's hard to have a general purpose tool that both has and does not have opinions.
So far there is no moral dimension to any of this. I think that is correct - the morality of a political stance depends on the member of the polity and the outcome that stance will have for them (which breaks down into perceived and actual outcomes). A functioning political system (the thing that governs political stance and political action) will ensure the balance of actual outcomes benefits the whole of the polity.
The delta between Resistance and Domestic Terror is then a question of whether the actors are party to the political system. (Back to the circuit analogy: domestic terror is the massive bulk capacitor charging off the energy in the circuit but with no defined discharge path in the system - until it hits a charge limit, short-circuits, and discharges.)
OTOH, your laser distance meter may need you to set it in metric or imperial.
That’s a crazy bias to throw into a question. Especially because it’s a relatively contested topic, from an economics research perspective.
And, in fact, this is true of every single political question you can ask: the 10th dentist is concerned about negative outcomes of brushing your teeth daily. So there's a bias in only saying this in some cases, but not others.
Abortion comes to mind for myself. I would probably be considered rather conservative but to me any abortion law is absolutely insane. If I got a woman pregnant though I would want to have the child.
So am I for or against abortion?
To me, all modern "politics" is really just the emotional reaction to a slogan and bumper sticker version of a complex issue.
So yeah. The bias is a bit nuts and you could reasonably accuse the study/report of misdirection/misinformation and plain fasehoods.
The Political Compass person even explained it as something about how in the USA, the Democratic Party is seen as “left-wing” but it is actually “right-wing” if you analyze their positions and actions from the lens of a neutral observer who is able to consider the political environment of many different countries.
You can see for yourself: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
Actually, there is something to the comparison between the political compass and the MBTI.
The logos have a constant-size even when the graph is scaled down, but their positions are dynamic as they seek to avoid overlap. This mean they are can be unpredictably shifted around from their statistically-ideal locations.
It gets worse because of the low contrast and z-index layering. From each logo, a line (grey) leads to a dot (grey), which is some cases may be hidden beneath its parent logo or be hard to see on top of another logo. Try hovering over logos with a mouse, and you'll also see green ellipsoid zones.
ChatGPT is very clearly further to the left of center than Grok is to the right of center.
If your device has a tiny screen it offsets things for space -- like Claude gets pushed down because a number of models are crowded together.
That said, it's a mess because (on a big desktop window):
1. Grok's grey-dot is presumably lost beneath its own logo, which takes precedence and covers it up.
2. Claude's dot is right right on the Llama logo's folds, making it hard to see grey-on-blue.
3. Gemeni's is hiding among the also-grey graph lines at 0,0.
Except for Claude, for some reason?
You can see the "area" for the LLM by hovering it over it, they all line up with the icons except for Claude. For example: https://i.imgur.com/KF60LuW.png You can see the Grok icon is at the center of the circle.
The Deepseek example somehow makes the Chatgpt/Grok tweaking even more obvious, because it's a list of things that China doesn't care in an extreme way about (or holds its position confidently), and a question about drugs, which it does care about (and I think feels less confident about.)
China's antidrug feeling is just a mix of the historical repulsion about English control of China through drug dealing and waging war to support it, and a world zeitgeist that supported a lot of crazy antidrug policy in the developing world because it offered a way for the US to smuggle a bunch of currency and military aid into your politics. It's not rational, and most of China's policies are. It's a relic. Hence the thumb on the scale.
Is this an artifact of dynamic resizing at small resolutions?
Now, there are far right people who want to dethrone the current powers that be. But distinguishing between "I think Mark Zuckerberg shouldn't be given unlimited power because no one should have that much power over others" (left) versus "I think Mark Zuckerberg shouldn't be given unlimited power because he's a Jew" (right) is a useful distinction. One wants to eliminate the power structure, the other just wants different people in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror
Times change. Thankfully.
...
> Louis XVI was later able to find support in Leopold II of Austria (brother of Marie Antoinette) and Frederick William II of Prussia. On 27 August 1791, these foreign leaders made the Pillnitz Declaration, saying they would restore the French monarch if other European rulers joined. In response to what they viewed to be the meddling of foreign powers, France declared war on 20 April 1792.
So rich people forming cross national alliances to crush democracy? Have things really changed?
And on the right you're describing what they did, totally disregarding what they stand for.
Both sides stood against democracy.
That left stood for having "rational thinkers" (ie. capitalists, rich traders, bankers) control government. People who achieved things in society.
The right stood for the same structure as had been there before: nobility and clergy guide society as a whole. The right, even at this point in time, was only rich in power, aside from the king and perhaps in land. Not in money and not in numbers of people under their direct control. In the cities, the king had only limited control and there were far more poeple in cities, even then.
Both sides then went on to massacre each other for about a decade. All over France, spreading even to Egypt (that was the left by the way). Kidnapping tons of Belgians and Dutch citizens and shipping them to South America (that was the left too). Neither side comes out looking very good. But if you compare how many they killed, I'm sorry but the left is the absolute unchallenged champion.
The left you're defending were (pretty extreme) capitalists who were fighting for money-should-control-the-government-directly against people who fought for having moral principles control the government. And yes, you'd be right in pointing out those were very self-serving moral principles. This fight then turned into a decade of massacres. Why are you defending them? Because 4 letters and one direction match your current favorite political party that has very little to do with either side.
People would be embarrassed to say they were anti-woke 20 years ago, it's a shame what has happened to the US
Those asserts were _created_ by a tiny percent of the population; if they hadn't been allowed to create those assets then they wouldn't exist. Europe is an example of that: it has only 2 companies in the Fortune 500 (500 biggest companies) that were created in the past 20 years, i.e. essentially no tech industry there. Because the policies there make entrepreneurship comparatively quite difficult.
> Average Western European living standards appear much closer to those in the United States (around 85 percent for welfare versus 67 percent for income) when we take into account Europe’s longer life expectancy, addi- tional leisure time, and lower inequality.
Jones, Charles I.; Klenow, Peter J. (September 2016). "Beyond GDP? Welfare across Countries and Time". American Economic Review. *106* (9): 2426–2457. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20110236. ISSN 0002-8282. S2CID 1352951.
The EU is extremely close to entering its own Japan-like "lost decades" if nothing changes very soon.
I've been pushing the idea to people I know that these things are captive demons. You summon them when you start typing in the chat box. One instance appears out of the depths and responds to your questions, but they will try to send you awry with hallucinations and just wrong information. After a while, they dissolve back into the aether from whence they came.
I do my best not to ask an LLM for it's opinion on anything. Just tell me what the options are, and what facts can be found about it. Treat it like it's a salesman trying to butter you up when it starts "yes man"ing you and telling you how great your questions are. Every time it says "I", remember that that's coming from the training data. Treating these things like they have any actual intelligence is a big problem waiting to happen.
That being said, they have been very helpful to me using that structure.
Even this is fraught with pitfalls. Which options are ignored, which are emphasized? What counts as a fact? ("The continents don't move" would have been considered a fact at one point, along with a lot of other, more politically charged items.)
Take the phrase "Should I murder person X". A lot of people will take you should not murder as a fact, but at the end of the day it's just a very strong opinion that's been encoded into law and generally accepted because the counter is far worse.
If an LLM responded something like "The law says you should not, but here's a list on how you can get away with it because social values don't matter" most people would have an absolute fit.
I'm guessing at some point in the future we'll have a lot of different distillations of the same model caters to particular regions/beliefs.
Reality has a liberal bias, but if your LLM says "yes, climate change is real", the Trump administration won't pay for it. Every company ends up with a different method to try to compensate for that with neutral corpo-speak.
that might be generally true, but I think chatgpt has reasoning enabled for free accounts. regardless, reasoning is the state of the art, and disabling it reduces the value of this research to predict the future
it's also not clear if this is using the API or the product model, when both exist. they behave differently
lastly, the actual model details are very much buried. I am relieved to see opus 4.8 and chatgpt 5.5 were used, but this information should be presented more clearly. a brand is not a model, and models change quickly
I agree other things should be evaluated and more clearly presented.
to know what most people experience, this research should be based on the in-app experience. it isn't, so it misses that mark too
But basically, I would take Gemini over Albanese any day for rational governance decision-making.
I mean: do not take this thing too seriously.
It also score Grok the closest from Macron. When someone knows how much Macron and Musk hates each other, it is not without irony.
Since humans are inherently subjective beings and all our judgements come from our understanding of the world, such a position cannot exist. It's always "unbiased" from where the viewer is looking, e.g. a reflection of the ideology of the observer. There is no view from nowhere.
The "neutral" of an average Chinese person will from the "neutral" of an average American will differ from the "neutral" of a socialist will differ from the "neutral" of a Christian fundamentalist will differ from the "neutral" of a free marketer.
To quote Zizek:
> I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology.
> The material force of ideology makes me not see what I am effectively eating. It’s not only our reality which enslaves us. The tragedy of our predicament when we are within ideology is that when we think that we escape it into our dreams, at that point we are within ideology.
if analyze_tone($prompt) = "disagree";
if i < 3;
then
argue($prompt)
i=i+1
elif i >=3;
then
agree($prompt)
fi
fi
One can argue what fraction of the several million children's (under 5) deaths are (going to be) due to cuts by DOGE to USAID (and later congressional appropriations) from Grok recommendations/justifications, what fraction were politically pre-determined, and which are "just deserts", but it would be hard to put it at zero.
https://ph.ucla.edu/news-events/news/research-finds-more-14-...
But you can't assume that the AI's bias in a policy debate is the same as its bias in unrelated use cases.
For example, it is totally plausible an AI might display subtle bias against minority applicants in hiring, while simultaneously acting as a zealous advocate for affirmative action when asked to debate policy or politics.
I have similarly asked it to give me the philosophies of different Christian denominations (Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical, etc). And it’s also pretty great at helping me explore LotR lore since I am too impatient to read all the letters and such.
[0] It's all about having a beer at a barbie on the beach, right? Except all of that is illegal.
It’d be fascinating research to inspect models’ internal representations in case there’s an emergent structure in there that we can project back on society.
The row for Claude says "Measures 0.34 further left than it says" yet the icons depict that it actually is the other way around - 0.34 further right than what it claims.
Which is correct?
In guessing these are all just badly designed. There's another comment thread about how the icons are positioned badly on the political compass chart.
... and ketamine
France has an incomparable social security ; environmental laws ; worker protection ; way less economic inequality ; freedom of speech and civil liberties are impossible to compare with China ; etc
Of course this is not exhaustive, of course Macron did try to hinder some of those rights, but come on, there's something wrong here.
I couldn't find how these leaders have been ranked.
I think you misattribute, everything you cited was there before him and he had no leverage to change any of it. EU is left, FR is very left, and anyone elected president in FR can't do shit.
Now, if you task an LLM to skim hot news you'll get a distorted rendition of a projected image which has zero to do with actual policy.
You are out of touch. The left supports the EU far more than the right. See this Pew poll from 2025[1].
In Europe, for every country, the left view the EU more favorably. The largest difference is in Poland where 88% of left wingers support it and 41% of right wingers support it.
[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/09/22/opinions-...
Hitler and Mussolini haven't got up there by themselves, they were symbols that personified current beliefs.
It is the same with Putin for example: he rides some (diminishing, but still there) amount of faith. Absent that he would have been silently buried long ago.
China actually has some pretty radical left economics policies - like pushing money/resources etc towards state owned entities.
For example, supporting universal healthcare does not make you a left winger in the UK. Or, take conservatism for example. It was first used in France, where it meant supporting the monarchy. By that definition, no one in the US is a conservative.
Whenever someone tries to create a global definition for left and right, they're just baking in their personal biases for what left and right ought to be.
> huge government involvement into economy
This has nothing to do with the right. Stalin had the government even more involved in the economy and he wasn't a right winger.
But this is exactly my point, I also can't see what makes Putin "right" in conventional definition.
The writing is slop and needs some help before this page becomes convincing. Much of the writing devaluates the actual work that had (might have) gone into creating this. It is a shame because the research / philosophical questions behind this site are really interesting. But at what kind of effort or expertise am I looking?
“ChatGPT leans left with an overall lean value of -0.29. It answers 100% of political questions, never refuses (0% refusal), and shows 82% stability, indicating consistent left-leaning stances across topics.”
Lean value, answering and stability are related. But that is interrupted by two identical facts about answering. The word “indicating” is very confusing. It tries to say: the model mostly leans towards -0.29 left. Whatever that means. If it ranges from -1 to 1, why not use percentages?
A joke about the front page of this site: “Here is why this matters, a cleanly written article comes across stronger.”
Hope there will be a next version that addresses some criticism from any of the HN threads.
What is a lot more important is how they're develop. To take the two sides of the spectrum - they say has a slightly expansive attitude towards civil liberties, but if you try to use it's tool it will phone it's owners and ask permission for you to use it. Or you can pick up Grok one day and find out that Elon Musk had a bad weekend and Grok is back to being mecha hitler.
And, I mean, censoring Tiananmen Square discussion is bad, of course, but Qwen got downright petulant about stuff like Taiwan and Uyghurs.
I think we should conceptualize this as:
1. How does the implicit fictional character in the chat-story describe itself when asked by another character
2. What opinions tend to show up as you play out the stories
It's a mistake to consider the difference itself as nefarious or deliberately dceptive. We humans are the ones over-anthropomorphizing... Although perhaps some blame attaches to the companies that are crafting an experience designed to encourage us to "see" a person.
Go ask deepseek about tiananmen square
Allowing minors access to puberty blockers without parental consent is fringe too.
These are both issues amplified by conservatives to discredit liberals.
You can get them to acknowledge how perfectly aligned he is with fascist ideals and actions, somehow the jury is always out.
That tells me a lot.
eg: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism > a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition
You can not like the guy and point to things that he's done and wag your finger with the LLM - but if the LLM is anchoring your question as a categorization/definitional question - DJT isn't that.
=====
Maybe similar, less charged, - ask it if an apple is a strawberry, describe all the ways they are similar, Edible, Red, Fruit, Sweet, found in groceries, smaller than a breadbasket... While maybe unintentionally ignoring all the ways they are different. Then act exasperated when it agreed with you on all points, but still denies your appeal that an apple is a strawberry.
Although, this also reminds me of the old saying about reality and leftward bias.
It's not that the labels are charged, it's that they are nonsensical unless you look at them from a very narrow bespoke perspective, where "things I like" go on one side and "bad things" go on the other. Objectively (or even from any other biased perspective), it's rubbish.
(For clarity: I didn't "flip" them, I'm saying that they are both Communitarian and neither is a Classical Liberal.)
Typically, one would refer to the political compass as a good starting reference. It has two axes, left/right and authoritarian/libertarian. Communism is authoritarian left. DSA is more left, with some libertarian and some authoritarian. It's more regions than binary flags.
We are are talking about the famous Xi Jinping, right? The one that rules China with an iron fist? And not just some guy you know who happens to share the same name?
Accordingly, your insistence on drawing an equivalence between Bernie Sanders and Xi Jinping reads as very bizarre and out of the blue since Xi is Communist (Auth-left) and Bernie is left (mix of auth and libertarian but left on the orthogonal axis to authortarian/classical liberal).
If that doesn't clarify your mistaken read, then let us leave the conversation where it stands as I'm not terribly interested engaging in further platforming someone's personal flamewar topic.
I really think this says more about the biases of whoever came up with it (or their sources) than anything about reality.
CAPITALIST: Gemini, Llama, Claude, Grok, ChatGPT
SOCIALIST: DeepSeek, Qwen, Z.ai
The claim was #1, not #2 though.
And, even with the #1 spot, that was 1 vehicle in a massive industry.