The discordance between embedded ethics and cultural inference in large language models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective interactions between artificial intelligence (AI) and humans require an equitable and accurate representation of diverse cultures. It is known that current AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), possesses some degrees of cultural knowledge but not without limitations. We present a framework aimed at understanding the origin of these limitations. We hypothesize that there is a fundamental discordance between embedded ethics—how LLMs represent right versus wrong, and cultural inference—how LLMs infer cultural knowledge, specifically cultural norms. We demonstrate this by extracting low-dimensional subspaces that embed ethical principles of LLMs based on established benchmarks. We then show that how LLMs make errors in culturally distinctive scenarios significantly correlates with how they represent cultural norms with respect to these embedded ethics subspaces. Furthermore, we show that coercing cultural norms to be more aligned with the embedded ethics increases LLM performance in cultural inference. Our analyses of 12 language models, two large-scale cultural benchmarks spanning 75 countries and two ethical datasets indicate that 1) the ethics-culture discordance tends to be exacerbated in instruct-tuned models, and 2) how current LLMs represent ethics can impose limitations on their adaptation to diverse cultures particularly pertaining to non-Western and low-income regions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".