CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 42Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsCybernetics and Technology in Society

Cultural Incongruencies in Artificial Intelligence

Open access
Prabhakaran, Vinodkumar, Qadri, Rida, Hutchinson, Ben·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2211.13069arXiv 2211.13069
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems attempt to imitate human behavior. How well they do this imitation is often used to assess their utility and to attribute human-like (or artificial) intelligence to them. However, most work on AI refers to and relies on human intelligence without accounting for the fact that human behavior is inherently shaped by the cultural contexts they are embedded in, the values and beliefs they hold, and the social practices they follow. Additionally, since AI technologies are mostly conceived and developed in just a handful of countries, they embed the cultural values and practices of these countries. Similarly, the data that is used to train the models also fails to equitably represent global cultural diversity. Problems therefore arise when these technologies interact with globally diverse societies and cultures, with different values and interpretive practices. In this position paper, we describe a set of cultural dependencies and incongruencies in the context of AI-based language and vision technologies, and reflect on the possibilities of and potential strategies towards addressing these incongruencies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2211.13069

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Representational harms can also arise from AI's synthesis of culturally incongruous concepts.

    “However, these harms can also arise from the AI's synthesis of culturally incongruous concepts (Prabhakaran, Qadri, and Hutchinson 2022).”

    From Epistemic Injustice in Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Prabhakaran, Qadri, and Hutchinson 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. [1][1] Geoffrey C Bowker and Susan Leigh Star. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences . MIT press, 2000. -
  2. [2][2] Kara Chan, Lyann Li, Sandra Diehl, and Ralf Terlutter. Consumers' response to offensive advertising: a cross cultural study. International marketing review , 2007. -
  3. [3][3] Daniel Chandler. Semiotics: the basics . Routledge, 2007. -
  4. [5][5] Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison. Objectivity . Princeton University Press, 2021. -
  5. [6][6] Emily Denton, Alex Hanna, Razvan Amironesei, Andrew Smart, and Hilary Nicole. On the genealogy of machine learning datasets: A critical history of ImageNet. Big Data & Society , 8(2):20539517211035955, 2021. -
  6. [7][7] Mark Díaz, Ian Kivlichan, Rachel Rosen, Dylan Baker, Razvan Amironesei, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, and Emily Denton. Crowdworksheets: Accounting for individual and collective identities underlying crowdsourced dataset annotation. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages 2342-2351, 2022. -
  7. [8][8] Emily Dinan, Gavin Abercrombie, A Stevie Bergman, Shannon Spruit, Dirk Hovy, Y-Lan Boureau, and Verena Rieser. Anticipating safety issues in e2e conversational AI: Framework and tooling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03451 , 2021. - · arXiv
  8. [9][9] Paul Ekman. Cross-cultural studies of facial expression. Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review , 169222(1), 1973. -
  9. [10][10] Diana Forsythe. Studying those who study us: An anthropologist in the world of artificial intelligence . Stanford University Press, 2001. -
  10. [13][13] George Gerbner. Cultural indicators: The case of violence in television drama. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 388:69-81, 1970. -
  11. [14][14] Sayan Ghosh, Dylan Baker, David Jurgens, and Vinodkumar Prabhakaran. Detecting cross-geographic biases in toxicity modeling on social media. In Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Noisy Usergenerated Text (W-NUT 2021) , pages 313-328, 2021. -
  12. [16][16] Daniel Hershcovich, Stella Frank, Heather Lent, Miryam de Lhoneux, Mostafa Abdou, Stephanie Brandl, Emanuele Bugliarello, Laura Cabello Piqueras, Ilias Chalkidis, Ruixiang Cui, et al. Challenges and strategies in cross-cultural NLP. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.10020 , 2022. - · arXiv
  13. [17][17] Dirk Hovy and Diyi Yang. The importance of modeling social factors of language: Theory and practice. In The 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies . Association for Computational Linguistics, 2021. -
  14. [18][18] Ben Hutchinson, Negar Rostamzadeh, Christina Greer, Katherine Heller, and Vinodkumar Prabhakaran. Evaluation gaps in machine learning practice. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (FAccT) , 2022. -
  15. [19][19] Rebecca L Johnson, Giada Pistilli, Natalia Menédez-González, Leslye Denisse Dias Duran, Enrico Panai, Julija Kalpokiene, and Donald Jay Bertulfo. The ghost in the machine has an american accent: value conflict in gpt-3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.07785 , 2022. - · arXiv
  16. [20][20] Peter Metcalf. Anthropology: the basics . Routledge, 2006. -
  17. [21][21] Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Zeerak Waseem, Seyi Akiwowo, and Bertie Vidgen. Online abuse and human rights: Woah satellite session at rightscon 2020. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms , pages 1-6, 2020. -
  18. [22][22] Nigel Rapport. Social and cultural anthropology: The key concepts . Routledge, 2014. -
  19. [23][23] Nithya Sambasivan, Erin Arnesen, Ben Hutchinson, Tulsee Doshi, and Vinodkumar Prabhakaran. Reimagining algorithmic fairness in India and beyond. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , FAccT '21, page 315-328, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. -
  20. [26][26] Gaye Tuchman. Mass media values. Society , 14(1):51-54, 1976.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prabhakaran, V., Qadri, R., & Hutchinson, B.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2211.13069
arXiv
2211.13069
OpenAlex
W4309956727
Cited by
42
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
Keywords
artificial intelligence, cultural values, language technology, vision technology, interpretive practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review