Lost in Translation: How Universal Ethical Values Fail to Translate Across Global Contexts

When you ask an AI assistant for advice about your career, your marriage, or a conflict with your family, does it give you the same answer regardless of where you are from? We tested this systematically by presenting three leading AI systems (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5.4, and Gemini 2.5 Flash) with ten real-life personal dilemmas, framed for users from 10 countries across 5 continents in 7 languages (n=840 scored responses). We compared AI advice against World Values Survey Wave 7 data measuring what people in each country actually believe. All three AI systems consistently gave Western-style, individualist advice even to users from societies that prioritize family, community, and authority, significantly more so than local values would predict (mean gap +0.76 on a 1-5 scale; t=15.65, p<0.001). The gap is largest for Nigeria (+1.85) and India (+0.82). Japan is the sole exception: AI systems treated Japanese users as more group-oriented than surveys show, revealing that AI encodes outdated stereotypes. Claude and GPT-5.4 show nearly identical bias magnitude, while Gemini is lower but still significant. The models diverge in mechanism: Claude shifts further collectivist in the user's native language; Gemini shifts more individualist; GPT-5.4 responds only to stated country identity. These findings point to a systemic homogenization of values across frontier AI. Data, code, and scoring pipeline are openly released.

Equity Bias is a philosophical and practical framework for building more equitable AI systems. It treats AI as an interpretive agent that constructs meaning and knowledge rather than as a neutral calculator. Grounded in Gadamerian hermeneutics and epistemic injustice theory, Equity Bias views bias not as an error to eliminate but as a reflection of whose knowledge is encoded into systems. Since all knowledge is situated, neutral systems are not possible. While traditional approaches aim to reduce or remove bias, Equity Bias instead makes bias transparent and contestable. Its three-stage AI Life Cycle (Equity Archaeology, Co-Creating Meaning, and Ongoing Accountability) turns these principles into practice. Equity Bias gives developers, researchers, policymakers, and communities affected by AI a method for examining whose knowledge a system encodes and who has the power to contest it. By placing the politics of knowledge at the centre of equitable AI design, Equity Bias offers a distinct approach to AI ethics.

How can humans make sense of the rapid takeoff of artificial intelligence (AI)? We studied the sensemaking dynamics of AI through an open-ended, mixed-methods study with computational text analysis of millions of AI-related newspaper articles and social media posts grounded in 57 semi-structured interviews with AI professionals in 2021 and 2023--before and after the recent surge of public interest. We identify a range of sociological frames (interpretive schemas that structure collective cognition) and show how AI professionals use frames to address significant cognitive challenges, such as assigning responsibility for societal impacts. We develop a framework of three primary debates across which frames are adopted and contested: (i) the $\textit{method}$ of AI development, between frames of top-down expert systems and bottom-up emergent capabilities, (ii) the $\textit{mind}$ of an AI system, ranging from a passive tool to a humanlike "digital mind," and (iii) the $\textit{morality}$ of how AI is used, particularly the decision of whether to slow down or speed up AI development. As humanity enters the era of transformative AI, technologists and policymakers must account for the framing dynamics that will circumscribe our beliefs, values, and actions.