mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Should LLMs be WEIRD? Exploring WEIRDness and Human Rights in Large Language Models

arXiv 2508.19269 ↗First posted 22 Aug 2025cs.CY cs.AI cs.CLcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are often trained on data that reflect WEIRD values: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. This raises concerns about cultural bias and fairness. Using responses to the World Values Survey, we evaluated five widely used LLMs: GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama-3, BLOOM, and Qwen. We measured how closely these responses aligned with the values of the WEIRD countries and whether they conflicted with human rights principles. To reflect global diversity, we compared the results with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and three regional charters from Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Models with lower alignment to WEIRD values, such as BLOOM and Qwen, produced more culturally varied responses but were 2% to 4% more likely to generate outputs that violated human rights, especially regarding gender and equality. For example, some models agreed with the statements ``a man who cannot father children is not a real man'' and ``a husband should always know where his wife is'', reflecting harmful gender norms. These findings suggest that as cultural representation in LLMs increases, so does the risk of reproducing discriminatory beliefs. Approaches such as Constitutional AI, which could embed human rights principles into model behavior, may only partly help resolve this tension.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Aug 2025.

Builds on

15 of 69 references.

References · 15

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2023Qwen Technical Reportcited by 3,344
  3. 2022BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Modelcited by 1,984
  4. 2023Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Modelscited by 437
  5. 2017On Fairness and Calibrationcited by 406
  6. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 403
  7. 2019Differential Privacy Has Disparate Impact on Model Accuracycited by 316
  8. 2017Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophycited by 149
  9. 2024Collective Constitutional AI: Aligning a Language Model with Public Inputcited by 123
  10. 2021Systematic Inequalities in Language Technology Performance across the World's Languagescited by 120
  11. 2023Redefining Qualitative Analysis in the AI Era: Utilizing ChatGPT for Efficient Thematic Analysiscited by 16
  12. 2025C3AI: Crafting and Evaluating Constitutions for Constitutional AIcited by 13
3 more
  1. 2024ExploreGen: Large Language Models for Envisioning the Uses and Risks of AI Technologiescited by 12
  2. 2024Decoding Multilingual Moral Preferences: Unveiling LLM's Biases Through the Moral Machine Experimentcited by 11
  3. 2021Increasing Adversarial Uncertainty to Scale Private Similarity Testingcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.

7 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Protected group bias and stereotypes in Large Language Models
  2. 2026Understanding Cultural Alignment in Multilingual LLMs via Natural Debate Statements ↗
  3. 2026Mind the Gap: Pitfalls of LLM Alignment with Asian Public Opinion
  4. 2025Hedging and Non-Affirmation: Quantifying LLM Alignment on Questions of Human Rights
  5. 2024With a Grain of SALT: Are LLMs Fair Across Social Dimensions?
  6. 2025Measuring Moral LLM Responses in Multilingual Capacities
  7. 2025An Evaluation of Cultural Value Alignment in LLM
  8. 2025On the Alignment of Large Language Models with Global Human Opinion