Stanford
University
  • Stanford Home
  • Maps & Directions
  • Search Stanford
  • Emergency Info
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy
  • Copyright
  • Trademarks
  • Non-Discrimination
  • Accessibility
© Stanford University.  Stanford, California 94305.
Embedding Democratic Values into Social Media AIs via Societal Objective Functions | Stanford HAI

Stay Up To Date

Get the latest news, advances in research, policy work, and education program updates from HAI in your inbox weekly.

Sign Up For Latest News

Navigate
  • About
  • Events
  • Careers
  • Search
Participate
  • Get Involved
  • Support HAI
  • Contact Us
Skip to content
  • About

    • About
    • People
    • Get Involved with HAI
    • Support HAI
    • Subscribe to Email
  • Research

    • Research
    • Fellowship Programs
    • Grants
    • Student Affinity Groups
    • Centers & Labs
    • Research Publications
    • Research Partners
  • Education

    • Education
    • Executive and Professional Education
    • Government and Policymakers
    • K-12
    • Stanford Students
  • Policy

    • Policy
    • Policy Publications
    • Policymaker Education
    • Student Opportunities
  • AI Index

    • AI Index
    • AI Index Report
    • Global Vibrancy Tool
    • People
  • News
  • Events
  • Industry
  • Centers & Labs
research

Embedding Democratic Values into Social Media AIs via Societal Objective Functions

Date
April 26, 2024
Topics
Democracy
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Read Paper
abstract

Mounting evidence indicates that the artificial intelligence (AI) systems that rank our social media feeds bear nontrivial responsibility for amplifying partisan animosity: negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward political out-groups. Can we design these AIs to consider democratic values such as mitigating partisan animosity as part of their objective functions? We introduce a method for translating established, vetted social scientific constructs into AI objective functions, which we term societal objective functions, and demonstrate the method with application to the political science construct of anti-democratic attitudes. Traditionally, we have lacked observable outcomes to use to train such models-however, the social sciences have developed survey instruments and qualitative codebooks for these constructs, and their precision facilitates translation into detailed prompts for large language models. We apply this method to create a democratic attitude model that estimates the extent to which a social media post promotes anti-democratic attitudes, and test this democratic attitude model across three studies. In Study 1, we first test the attitudinal and behavioral effectiveness of the intervention among US partisans (N=1,380) by manually annotating (alpha=.895) social media posts with anti-democratic attitude scores and testing several feed ranking conditions based on these scores. Removal (d=.20) and downranking feeds (d=.25) reduced participants' partisan animosity without compromising their experience and engagement. In Study 2, we scale up the manual labels by creating the democratic attitude model, finding strong agreement with manual labels (rho=.75). Finally, in Study 3, we replicate Study 1 using the democratic attitude model instead of manual labels to test its attitudinal and behavioral impact (N=558), and again find that the feed downranking using the societal objective function reduced partisan animosity (d=.25). This method presents a novel strategy to draw on social science theory and methods to mitigate societal harms in social media AIs.

Share
Link copied to clipboard!
Authors
  • Chenyan Jia
  • Michelle Lam
    Michelle Lam
  • Michael S. Bernstein
    Michael S. Bernstein
  • Minh Chau Mai

Related Publications

The Global AI Vibrancy Tool 2025
Loredana Fattorini, Nestor Maslej, Ray Perrault, Vanessa Parli, John Etchemendy, Yoav Shoham, Katrina Ligett
Deep DiveNov 24, 2025
Research
Your browser does not support the video tag.

This methodological paper presents the Global AI Vibrancy Tool, an interactive suite of visualizations designed to facilitate cross-country comparisons of AI vibrancy across countries, using indicators organized into pillars. The tool offers customizable features that enable users to conduct in-depth country-level comparisons and longitudinal analyses of AI-related metrics.

Research
Your browser does not support the video tag.

The Global AI Vibrancy Tool 2025

Loredana Fattorini, Nestor Maslej, Ray Perrault, Vanessa Parli, John Etchemendy, Yoav Shoham, Katrina Ligett
DemocracyIndustry, InnovationGovernment, Public AdministrationDeep DiveNov 24

This methodological paper presents the Global AI Vibrancy Tool, an interactive suite of visualizations designed to facilitate cross-country comparisons of AI vibrancy across countries, using indicators organized into pillars. The tool offers customizable features that enable users to conduct in-depth country-level comparisons and longitudinal analyses of AI-related metrics.

The AI Arms Race In Health Insurance Utilization Review: Promises Of Efficiency And Risks Of Supercharged Flaws
Michelle Mello, Artem Trotsyuk, Abdoul Jalil Djiberou Mahamadou, Danton Char
Quick ReadJan 06, 2026
Research
Your browser does not support the video tag.

Health insurers and health care provider organizations are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) tools in prior authorization and claims processes. AI offers many potential benefits, but its adoption has raised concerns about the role of the “humans in the loop,” users’ understanding of AI, opacity of algorithmic determinations, underperformance in certain tasks, automation bias, and unintended social consequences. To date, institutional governance by insurers and providers has not fully met the challenge of ensuring responsible use. However, several steps could be taken to help realize the benefits of AI use while minimizing risks. Drawing on empirical work on AI use and our own ethical assessments of provider-facing tools as part of the AI governance process at Stanford Health Care, we examine why utilization review has attracted so much AI innovation and why it is challenging to ensure responsible use of AI. We conclude with several steps that could be taken to help realize the benefits of AI use while minimizing risks.

Research
Your browser does not support the video tag.

The AI Arms Race In Health Insurance Utilization Review: Promises Of Efficiency And Risks Of Supercharged Flaws

Michelle Mello, Artem Trotsyuk, Abdoul Jalil Djiberou Mahamadou, Danton Char
HealthcareRegulation, Policy, GovernanceQuick ReadJan 06

Health insurers and health care provider organizations are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) tools in prior authorization and claims processes. AI offers many potential benefits, but its adoption has raised concerns about the role of the “humans in the loop,” users’ understanding of AI, opacity of algorithmic determinations, underperformance in certain tasks, automation bias, and unintended social consequences. To date, institutional governance by insurers and providers has not fully met the challenge of ensuring responsible use. However, several steps could be taken to help realize the benefits of AI use while minimizing risks. Drawing on empirical work on AI use and our own ethical assessments of provider-facing tools as part of the AI governance process at Stanford Health Care, we examine why utilization review has attracted so much AI innovation and why it is challenging to ensure responsible use of AI. We conclude with several steps that could be taken to help realize the benefits of AI use while minimizing risks.

AI, Health, and Health Care Today and Tomorrow: The JAMA Summit Report on Artificial Intelligence
Tina Hernandez-Boussard, Michelle Mello, Nigam Shah, Co-authored by 50+ experts
Deep DiveOct 13, 2025
Research
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Research
Your browser does not support the video tag.

AI, Health, and Health Care Today and Tomorrow: The JAMA Summit Report on Artificial Intelligence

Tina Hernandez-Boussard, Michelle Mello, Nigam Shah, Co-authored by 50+ experts
HealthcareRegulation, Policy, GovernanceDeep DiveOct 13