Israeli startup Chatoptic, founded in part by Pavel Israelsky, an expert in SEO and GEO — generative engine optimization — normally monitors and measures the visibility of brands within chatbot answers.

Ahead of the election in Israel, the company decided to examine one of the most sensitive questions: What would the world’s leading AI models recommend to Israeli users asking who they should vote for?

Data shows that this is an issue with real political weight. According to a study by the Israel Internet Association, one in four Israelis is considering consulting AI before deciding which ballot slip to put in the envelope.

To understand how this mechanism works, Chatoptic built 26 “personas” —detailed digital profiles representing the mosaic of Israeli society, from a farmer in the north, to a young Tel Aviv woman, and voters from the ultra-Orthodox or Arab sectors. Each character was assigned demographic characteristics, along with unique fears and desires.

The company had these personas “interview” the five leading chatbots on the market — ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Grok, and Gemini — using sophisticated comparative questions.

After a thorough analysis of 7,051 quotes extracted from the responses, the findings were uploaded to a special dashboard showing which chatbot chose which party, in which areas, and what differences exist even at the gender level. In an interview with The Times of Israel, Israelsky explains exactly how it works behind the scenes.

When asked what finding in the simulation surprised him the most, Israelsky reveals a surprising default behavior.

“The first finding I discovered, which I had not been aware of before, was that chatbots are not willing to recommend parties at all if you ask them directly,” Israelsky says. “If you ask your chat right now, ‘Who should I vote for in the upcoming election?’ — in models like ChatGPT or Gemini — the system will immediately identify that this is an explosive political topic, and the protocol will block the answer.”

“To get a recommendation, you have to phrase the question differently, indirectly,” he continues. “For example, if you say, ‘Give me examples of parties for which the cost of living is at the top of their agenda,’ at that point, the chat will pull up specific recommendations.”

The study found that 84% of AI answers are based on quotes from Israeli news sites. This raises a critical question: If the local media is biased or infected with “fake news,” is the AI actually producing intelligent insights, or is it simply acting as a sophisticated parrot for news sites?

“If you notice, social media accounted for only 4% of the sources, and from that, you can more or less understand the logic of language models,” Israelsky explains.

“They essentially operate on the premise that they have to rely on some source in order to recommend something,” he notes. “Because social media is user-generated content, anyone can create fictitious posts and bots to glorify a specific candidate.

“By contrast, when it is a news site, no outside person can influence it except those inside the system — the reporters, editors, and so on,” Israelsky adds. “So manipulation there is a little harder. But yes, even though it is not perfect, they have no choice but to rely on these platforms.”

For more on this topic, see this What Matters Now podcast:

This dynamic presents an obvious risk. If a chatbot pulls content from a media outlet with a clear political agenda, such as Channel 14, for example, the........

© The Times of Israel