The Impact of Generative Neural Networks on Mass Consciousness: A Comparative Analysis of Western, Russian, and Chinese Neural Networks

The article presents a comparative analysis of value orientations across six generative neural networks of different national origins: American ChatGPT and Claude, Chinese DeepSeek, French Mistral AI, and Russian YandexGPT and GigaChat. The rapid penetration of such systems into everyday information environments raises the question of what ideological attitudes they transmit to their hundreds of millions of users. The study aims to identify and systematize these attitudes and to describe the mechanisms through which they influence the components of political consciousness. The methodological framework combines critical discourse analysis, the concept of algorithmic bias, and frame analysis. A structured questionnaire comprising seven blocks was developed to test the models, covering political values, beliefs, knowledge, interpretations of events, emotional reactions, needs, and evaluations. The study was conducted from June to August 2025; all prompts were submitted in Russian in a standardized form. The findings show that American and European models consistently reproduce liberal-democratic attitudes, while DeepSeek combines relative openness with rigid blocking of topics sensitive to the PRC. Russian models fail to form an independent value framework: on politically neutral questions their responses effectively replicate the Western frame, whereas exposure to contentious issues triggers an avoidance strategy. The frame analysis identified four stable discursive frames: liberal-universalist, sovereign-pragmatic, declared neutrality, and selective blocking. Seven mechanisms of influence on users’ political consciousness were identified: normalization, framing, selective knowledge retrieval, attribution of motives, emotional labeling, agenda-setting, and asymmetric criticism. The study concludes that the declared technological sovereignty of domestic models is not substantiated by any meaningful value alternative and effectively cedes the information space to Western competitors.

1. Bolukbasi T., Chang K.-W., Zou J., Saligrama V., Kalai A. (2016) Man Is to Computer Programmer as Woman Is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (NIPS 2016). Barcelona: NeurIPS. Available at: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2016/file/a486cd07e4ac3d270571622f4f316ec5-Paper.pdf

2. Crawford K. (2021) Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press.

3. Entman R.M. (1993) Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication. Vol. 43. Is. 4. P. 51–58.

4. Fairclough N. (2013) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Routledge.

5. Feng S., Park C.Y., Liu Y., Tsvetkov Y. (2023) From Pretraining Data to Language Models to Downstream Tasks: Tracking the Trails of Political Biases Leading to Unfair NLP Models. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol. 1: Long Papers). Toronto: ACL. DOI: 10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.656

6. Finn P., Bell L., Tatum A., Leicht C. (2024) Assessing ChatGPT as a Tool for Research on US State and Territory Politics. Political Studies Review. Vol. 23. Is. 3. DOI: 10.1177/14789299241268652

7. Goffman E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

8. Gover L. (2023) Political Bias in Large Language Models. The Commons: Puget Sound Journal of Politics. Vol. 4. Is. 1. P. 11–22.

9. Nye J.S. (2004) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.

10. Pacheco A.G., Cavalini A., Comarela G. (2025) Echoes of Power: Investigating Geopolitical Bias in US and China Large Language Models. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Vol. 13. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-026-06577-6

11. Selezneva A.V. (2024) Political Values of Russian Youth: Traditional Meanings in Modern Conditions. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya. No. 77. P. 275–289. DOI: 10.17223/1998863X/77/23

12. Smulkina N.V. (2025) Political Perception of The Country: Research Models and Methodological Strategies. Politicheskaya nauka. No. 4. P. 16–39. DOI: 10.31249/poln/2025.04.01

13. Van Dijk T.A. (2017) Discourse and Power. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

14. Volodenkov S.V. (2024) Neural Network Algorithms in Current Processes of Transformation of Traditional Worldview and Ideological Systems. Kontury global’nykh transformatsiy: politika, ekonomika, pravo. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 6–30. DOI: 10.31249/kgt/2024.02.01

15. Volodenkov S.V., Fedorchenko S.N., Pechenkin N.M. (2024) Risks, Threats, and Challenges of Introducing Artificial Intelligence and Neural Network Algorithms into the Contemporary System of Socio-Political Communications: The Results of Expert Study. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya. Vol. 26. No. 2. P. 406–424. DOI: 10.22363/2313-1438-2024-26-2-406-424

16. Zinovyeva E.S., Trapeznikov V.P. (2026) International Political Bias in Large Language Models: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Narratives in ChatGPT, Llama, Gemini, And DeepSeek. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 1. P. 157–177. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2026.01.11