• While all Laidlaw Scholars will be presenting their research at the Columbia Undergraduate Research Symposium in the fall, what are the more immediate expectations that you have for your research? Are you writing a paper? Will your research be part of a larger scientific study? Do you hope to produce an annotated bibliography that you reflect on down the line? Is your research now the first phase of a project you’ll continue to work on throughout the year, and/or next summer? Now that we are nearing the one month mark of the program, please write about your expectations for your research.

I am in the process of writing a paper with a lot of helpful guidance from Professor Frye, my professor supervisor. I will definitely produce an annotated bibliography, and continue to work on the paper throughout the summer as I hope to achieve a paper that can actually be used as a snapshot in this moment in time in the history of AI for Russia, given how rapidly the software is developing and the urgency of conducting this research now before regulations might change or the LLMs could become even more limited in their outputs to political questions. I was intrigued by Dean Lang's email about the Columbia research blog, and the August 15 deadline will motivate me to continue my paper throughout the summer but not extend it to the point that I will have to work tirelessly on the research during the fall semester. I am inspired by Professor Frye's papers that he has been sending me as examples not only useful for learning the structure of a paper (and I am grateful that he has been teaching me a lot about the research paper-writing process), but examples of papers that are similar to mine in their qualitative nature. I was uncertain initially about whether my research could be valid enough to produce a paper, given that I wasn't collecting quantitative data, but my discussions with Professor Frye have assured me that my research takes the form of more of a case study and can lead to interesting abstract and broader political discussions of the influences of brain drain on the development of Russian LLMs, potential discrepancies in the censorship logic of the Russian LLMs, and the evidence of a political agenda (at times inconsistent, though) throughout the responses.

• Why does your research matter? Explain the significance of the question you are investigating, and why you are interested in it.

My research raises broader philosophical and political questions about both the role of AI in providing information and handling political subjects, and the ever-evolving tools of political censorship in Russia. Throughout my interactions with the Russian LLMs, I have found that they treat historical vs. political figures and events inconsistently, allowing for pro-Ukrainian perspectives to shine through in their discussions of history but not in their discussions of politics. This raises questions about what artificial intelligence models consider to be overly sensitive and whether history or politics are more impactful in influencing public opinion, as well as broader questions about what role LLMs should take in politics (e.g.  are they responsible for taking a stance or providing a sense of justice for users?). It also provides insight into the ways the Kremlin is expanding its censorship policies and practices into the digital sphere amid the rise of artificial intelligence. Finally, the inconsistent logic of censorship I have discovered in these Russian LLMs point to the potential weakness of Russian artificial intelligence at large especially in light of the brain drain the Federation experienced after the 2022 invasion.