technology policy teams

Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have accelerated research on low-resource and multilingual NLP, but their effectiveness in creating an equitable landscape remains unmapped. We analyze 1,158 peer-reviewed open-access papers published between 2020 and 2025, examining research attention to low-resource languages (LRLs) and representation across language and speaker populations. To assess linguistic inclusion beyond publication counts, we introduce the Linguistic Inclusion Framework (LIF), a multidimensional framework that measures linguistic inclusion in four dimensions: research growth, representation expansion, representation continuity, and distributional equity. While annual publications grew from 52 to 415, a 5.4X increase in their ACL Anthology publication share, this growth largely concentrated on represented languages rather than expanding coverage of underrepresented languages. Further analysis shows that languages spoken in Asia account for 64.1% of speakers across LRLs we analyze but receive only 46.7% of the language representation share (0.7X their proportional share), while European languages receive 5.3X their proportional share. At the country level, linguistically diverse regions such as sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia show the lowest language coverage ratios. Applying the framework at the continental level, we find that no region scores well on all four dimensions, showing that research growth alone is not a reliable metric of progress toward equitable and inclusive language technology\footnote{We will release all collected and annotated data for research purposes}.

Abstract: Contemporary AI development operates on foundational assumptions about intelligence, rationality, and human values that reflect narrow cultural perspectives, limiting alternative conceptions of how AI can be globally beneficial. This paper introduces seven anthropological concepts -- origin story, monoculture, thick description, personhood and community, cargo cult, structuralism, and liminality -- to expose hidden assumptions and offer alternative frameworks for understanding AI alignment. The paper examines how AI systems embody Western-centric notions of rationality as utility optimization, personhood as bounded individuals, and values as quantifiable preferences extracted from behavior. The concepts surface three assumptions that current alignment debates rarely examine: that values can be inferred from behavior, quantified, and formalized; that such quantified values capture what actually matters; and that values, once defined with sufficient precision, are appropriate optimization targets. Against "thin alignment" -- optimization for behavioral proxies stripped of context -- the paper proposes directions toward "thick alignment": recognizing that values emerge through social practice rather than existing as extractable properties; defining more appropriate metrics that capture not only end goals but the conditions that lead to long-term flourishing; and moving from models of fixed identity toward relational ontologies where personhood emerges through social participation. The paper concludes that if AI systems are to create conditions conducive to human flourishing rather than optimize metrics that flatten social experiences, three shifts are needed: redistributing interpretive sovereignty to affected communities, protecting what resists optimization, and extending accountability across generations.