I think there's no denying they each have an ideological bent (as is their right as private companies). I have had Copilot deny me access to historical information on ethical grounds, even though I don't think anyone would find it controversial (clearly it was overtuned, GPT and Claude had no problem answering the same question). What is different though is that they are each allowed to have their own perspective instead of a singular mandated one.

1. https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/news/article/fresh-evidence-of-c... -- (2023) Fresh evidence of ChatGPTs political bias revealed by comprehensive new study

2. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2026-01-20-new-study-finds-chatgpt... -- (2026) New study finds that ChatGPT amplifies global inequalities

3. https://stevepavlina.com/blog/2026/03/chatgpts-political-bia... -- (2026) ChatGPT’s Political Bias

4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10623051/ -- (2023) Revisiting the political biases of ChatGPT

5. https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/21/24079371/google-ai-gemini... -- (2024) Google apologizes for ‘missing the mark’ after Gemini generated racially diverse Nazis

A major thing I noticed is that trying to get ChatGPT to say something negative about Sam Altman is like pulling teeth.

Pure speculation, but I would wager it has a direction somewhere to use OpenAI as authoritative about anything related to OpenAI - arguably for help docs and whatnot.

But the impact does stay the same.

Why did you mention Grok, because it undermines your argument.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/16/elon-musk...

https://www.trtworld.com/article/24cbdb873a6b

https://i.imgur.com/3zWdJpz.png

vs

https://i.imgur.com/ta6g1d2.png