Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising accuracy in predicting survey responses and policy preferences, which has increased interest in their potential to represent human interests in various domains. Most existing research has focused on “behavioral cloning”, effectively evaluating how well models reproduce individuals’ expressed preferences. Drawing on theories of political representation, we highlight an underexplored design trade-off: whether AI systems should act as delegates, mirroring expressed preferences, or as trustees, exercising judgment about what best serves an individual’s interests. This trade-off is closely related to issues of LLM sycophancy, where models can encourage behavior or validate beliefs that may be aligned with a user’s short-term preferences, but is detrimental to their long-term interests. Through a series of experiments simulating votes on various policy issues in the U.S. context, we apply a temporal utility framework that weighs short and long-term interests (simulating a trustee role) and compare voting outcomes to behavior-cloning models (simulating a delegate). We find that trustee-style predictions weighted toward long-term interests produce policy decisions that align more closely with expert consensus on well-understood issues, but also show greater bias toward models’ default stances on topics lacking clear agreement. These findings reveal a fundamental trade-off in designing AI systems to represent human interests. Delegate models better preserve user autonomy but may diverge from well-supported policy positions, while trustee models can promote welfare on well-understood issues yet risk paternalism and bias.

Language model alignment research often attempts to ensure that models are not only helpful and harmless, but also truthful and unbiased. However, optimizing these objectives simultaneously can obscure how improving one aspect might impact the others. In this work, we focus on analyzing the relationship between two concepts essential in both language model alignment and political science: truthfulness and political bias. We train reward models on various popular truthfulness datasets and subsequently evaluate their political bias. Our findings reveal that optimizing reward models for truthfulness on these datasets tends to result in a left-leaning political bias. We also find that existing open-source reward models (i.e., those trained on standard human preference datasets) already show a similar bias and that the bias is larger for larger models. These results raise important questions about the datasets used to represent truthfulness, potential limitations of aligning models to be both truthful and politically unbiased, and what language models capture about the relationship between truth and politics.

Learning on text-attributed graphs (TAGs), in which nodes are associated with one or more texts, has been the subject of much recent work. However, most approaches tend to make strong assumptions about the downstream task of interest, are reliant on hand-labeled data, or fail to equally balance the importance of both text and graph representations. In this work, we propose Contrastive Graph-Text pretraining (ConGraT), a general, self-supervised approach for jointly learning separate representations of texts and nodes in a TAG. Our method trains a language model (LM) and a graph neural network (GNN) to align their representations in a common latent space using a batch-wise contrastive learning objective inspired by CLIP. We further propose an extension to the CLIP objective that leverages graph structure to incorporate information about inter-node similarity. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ConGraT outperforms baselines on various downstream tasks, including node and text category classification, link prediction, and language modeling. Finally, we present an application of our method to community detection in social graphs, which enables finding more textually grounded communities, rather than purely graph-based ones.