Why AI Is WEIRD and Should Not Be This Way: Towards AI For Everyone, With Everyone, By Everyone
Open accessAbstract
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).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
WEIRD people make up only a fraction of the world's population, and the LLM's WEIRDness persists even in multilingual models.
“However, WEIRD people make up only a fraction of the world's population, and the LLM's WEIRDness persists even in multilingual models.”
From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as Mihalcea, et al. [30]
Lack of representation in AI development, lack of culture-specific and diverse information in training data, lack of inclusive annotation of data, and American pre-training and alignment biases contribute to LLM WEIRDness.
“Mihalcea, et al. [30] come to similar conclusions, and base this, on the technical side, furthermore on the factors of a lack of representation in AI development, a lack of culture-specific and diverse information in the training data and inclusive annotation of data, and American pre-training and alignment biases.”
From A taxonomy of epistemic injustice in the context of AI and the case for generative hermeneutical erasure (2025) · cites this paper as Mihalcea, et al. [30]
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mollema, W. J. T. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00801-w · Cited by 24 · see citing works
AI-generated Literature, Distant Writing and the Reader: Reflections on Floridi and Calvino
Mollema, W. J. T. (2025) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-025-01008-x · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Discrimination DRIFT: A Practical Framework for Responsible AI
Wyer, S. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01211-2 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Cultural Bias and Linguistic Representation in AI Curriculum Design
Usman, N., Kusumanegara, A., Husnaini, H., Said, Y. R., & Ismayanti, D. (2025) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-1062-6.ch008 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mihalcea, R., Ignat, O., Bai, L., Borah, A., Chiruzzo, L., Jin, Z., Kwizera, C., Nwatu, J., Poria, S., & Solorio, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Santa Clara University (US)
- Universidad de la República de Uruguay (UY)
- Max Planck Society (DE)
- Carnegie Mellon University Africa (RW)
- Singapore University of Technology and Design (SG)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2410.16315
- OpenAlex
- W4404260745
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
- Keywords
- inclusive AI, data diversity, algorithmic bias, evaluation metrics, stakeholder inclusion
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
