Cross-linguistic disagreement as a conflict of semantic alignment norms in multilingual AI~Linguistic Diversity as a Problem for Philosophy, Cognitive Science, and AI~

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04792v1
• Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2025 03:31:40 GMT
• Title: Cross-linguistic disagreement as a conflict of semantic alignment norms in multilingual AI~Linguistic Diversity as a Problem for Philosophy, Cognitive Science, and AI~
• Authors: Masaharu Mizumoto, Dat Tien Nguyen, Justin Sytsma, Mark Alfano, Yu Izumi, Koji Fujita, Nguyen Le Minh,
• Abstract summary: Cross-linguistic consistency (CL-consistency) seeks universal concepts across languages.<n>Folk-consistency, which respects language-specific semantic norms.<n>Findings challenge assumption that universal representations and cross-linguistic transfer capabilities are inherently desirable.
• Score: 0.2443066828522608
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multilingual large language models (LLMs) face an often-overlooked challenge stemming from intrinsic semantic differences across languages. Linguistic divergence can sometimes lead to cross-linguistic disagreements--disagreements purely due to semantic differences about a relevant concept. This paper identifies such disagreements as conflicts between two fundamental alignment norms in multilingual LLMs: cross-linguistic consistency (CL-consistency), which seeks universal concepts across languages, and consistency with folk judgments (Folk-consistency), which respects language-specific semantic norms. Through examining responses of conversational multilingual AIs in English and Japanese with the cases used in philosophy (cases of knowledge-how attributions), this study demonstrates that even state-of-the-art LLMs provide divergent and internally inconsistent responses. Such findings reveal a novel qualitative limitation in crosslingual knowledge transfer, or conceptual crosslingual knowledge barriers, challenging the assumption that universal representations and cross-linguistic transfer capabilities are inherently desirable. Moreover, they reveal conflicts of alignment policies of their developers, highlighting critical normative questions for LLM researchers and developers. The implications extend beyond technical alignment challenges, raising normative, moral-political, and metaphysical questions about the ideals underlying AI development--questions that are shared with philosophers and cognitive scientists but for which no one yet has definitive answers, inviting a multidisciplinary approach to balance the practical benefits of cross-linguistic consistency and respect for linguistic diversity.

Related papers

• Consistency in Language Models: Current Landscape, Challenges, and Future Directions [8.342499446600268]
  State-of-the-art language models struggle to maintain reliable consistency across different scenarios. This paper examines the landscape of consistency research in AI language systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-01T03:25:25Z)
• Uncovering inequalities in new knowledge learning by large language models across different languages [66.687369838071]
  We show that low-resource languages consistently face disadvantages across all four dimensions. We aim to raise awareness of linguistic inequalities in LLMs' new knowledge learning, fostering the development of more inclusive and equitable future LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T03:41:47Z)
• The Shrinking Landscape of Linguistic Diversity in the Age of Large Language Models [7.811355338367627]
  We show that the widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) as writing assistants is linked to notable declines in linguistic diversity. We show that while the core content of texts is retained when LLMs polish and rewrite texts, not only do they homogenize writing styles, but they also alter stylistic elements in a way that selectively amplifies certain dominant characteristics or biases while suppressing others.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T20:51:07Z)
• From No to Know: Taxonomy, Challenges, and Opportunities for Negation Understanding in Multimodal Foundation Models [48.68342037881584]
  Negation, a linguistic construct conveying absence, denial, or contradiction, poses significant challenges for multilingual multimodal foundation models.<n>We propose a comprehensive taxonomy of negation constructs, illustrating how structural, semantic, and cultural factors influence multimodal foundation models.<n>We advocate for specialized benchmarks, language-specific tokenization, fine-grained attention mechanisms, and advanced multimodal architectures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T16:55:13Z)
• Benchmarking Linguistic Diversity of Large Language Models [14.824871604671467]
  This paper emphasizes the importance of examining the preservation of human linguistic richness by language models. We propose a comprehensive framework for evaluating LLMs from various linguistic diversity perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-13T16:46:03Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language. This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Language Model Alignment in Multilingual Trolley Problems [138.5684081822807]
  Building on the Moral Machine experiment, we develop a cross-lingual corpus of moral dilemma vignettes in over 100 languages called MultiTP.<n>Our analysis explores the alignment of 19 different LLMs with human judgments, capturing preferences across six moral dimensions.<n>We discover significant variance in alignment across languages, challenging the assumption of uniform moral reasoning in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T14:02:53Z)
• Are Structural Concepts Universal in Transformer Language Models? Towards Interpretable Cross-Lingual Generalization [27.368684663279463]
  We investigate the potential for explicitly aligning conceptual correspondence between languages to enhance cross-lingual generalization. Using the syntactic aspect of language as a testbed, our analyses of 43 languages reveal a high degree of alignability. We propose a meta-learning-based method to learn to align conceptual spaces of different languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T14:50:51Z)
• Re-Reading Improves Reasoning in Large Language Models [87.46256176508376]
  We introduce a simple, yet general and effective prompting method, Re2, to enhance the reasoning capabilities of off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs) Unlike most thought-eliciting prompting methods, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Re2 shifts the focus to the input by processing questions twice, thereby enhancing the understanding process. We evaluate Re2 on extensive reasoning benchmarks across 14 datasets, spanning 112 experiments, to validate its effectiveness and generality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-12T14:36:23Z)
• NormSAGE: Multi-Lingual Multi-Cultural Norm Discovery from Conversations On-the-Fly [61.77957329364812]
  We introduce a framework for addressing the novel task of conversation-grounded multi-lingual, multi-cultural norm discovery. NormSAGE elicits knowledge about norms through directed questions representing the norm discovery task and conversation context. It further addresses the risk of language model hallucination with a self-verification mechanism ensuring that the norms discovered are correct.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-16T18:30:05Z)
• AM2iCo: Evaluating Word Meaning in Context across Low-ResourceLanguages with Adversarial Examples [51.048234591165155]
  We present AM2iCo, Adversarial and Multilingual Meaning in Context. It aims to faithfully assess the ability of state-of-the-art (SotA) representation models to understand the identity of word meaning in cross-lingual contexts. Results reveal that current SotA pretrained encoders substantially lag behind human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-17T20:23:45Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.