Why AI Is WEIRD and Shouldn't Be This Way: Towards AI for Everyone, with Everyone, by Everyone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a vision for creating AI systems that are inclusive at every stage of development, from data collection to model design and evaluation. We address key limitations in the current AI pipeline and its WEIRD* representation, such as lack of data diversity, biases in model performance, and narrow evaluation metrics. We also focus on the need for diverse representation among the developers of these systems, as well as incentives that are not skewed toward certain groups. We highlight opportunities to develop AI systems that are for everyone (with diverse stakeholders in mind), with everyone (inclusive of diverse data and annotators), and by everyone (designed and developed by a globally diverse workforce). *WEIRD = an acronym coined by Joseph Henrich to highlight the coverage limitations of many psychological studies, referring to populations that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic; while we do not fully adopt this term for AI, as its current scope does not perfectly align with the WEIRD dimensions, we believe that today's AI has a similarly "weird" coverage, particularly in terms of who is involved in its development and who benefits from it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".