How men were left to starve in a South African gold mine. This image was created by Mohamed Hussein using the artificial intelligence (AI) tool Midjourney. Ayanda Ndabeni watched the faint glow from his headlamp fight the vast darkness 1,500 metres (4,920 feet) below ground. His miner's lamp had lasted for more than a week after he was lowered down into the shaft of the gold mine. But now the batteries were dying. He gently flipped the plastic switch of his lamp, turning it off, and the trapped men around him became shadows. In the stifling heat and humidity, their anxiety pressed in from all sides. Ayanda had descended into Shaft 10 of the Buffelsfontein mine in late September 2024, lowered by a team of nearly 20 men operating ropes and a pulley above ground. That day, he'd spotted police vehicles near the mine's entrance. The 36-year-old assumed it was just routine patrols around the mine system, which is 2km (1.2 miles) deep. But then the rope pulley, via which food, water, batteries and other items arrived, stopped moving. The shouting that usually indicated the rope operators were sending down a man or supplies also fell silent. When huge rocks came crashing down the shaft, they knew it was a warning. The men whispered of their growing fears that something was very wrong on the surface. Patrick Ntsokolo was also in Shaft 10. He was a few hundred metres higher up than Ayanda and had arrived in late July. Patrick was new to the mines. Tasked by the leaders of the artisanal miners with collecting the food, water and alcohol lowered down by the rope pulley, he hauled supplies along the slippery tunnels to small shops.

Species range maps (SRMs) are essential tools for research and policy-making in ecology, conservation, and environmental management.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into everyday life and information ecosystems, concerns about their implicit biases continue to persist. While prior work has primarily examined socio-demographic and left--right political dimensions, little attention has been paid to how LLMs align with broader geopolitical value systems, particularly the democracy--authoritarianism spectrum. In this paper, we propose a novel methodology to assess such alignment, combining (1) the F-scale, a psychometric tool for measuring authoritarian tendencies, (2) FavScore, a newly introduced metric for evaluating model favorability toward world leaders, and (3) role-model probing to assess which figures are cited as general role-models by LLMs. We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increased favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin. Further, models are found to often cite authoritarian figures as role models, even outside explicit political contexts. These results shed light on ways LLMs may reflect and potentially reinforce global political ideologies, highlighting the importance of evaluating bias beyond conventional socio-political axes. Our code is available at: https://github.com/irenestrauss/Democratic-Authoritarian-Bias-LLMs.

For example, in the Pandemic Response Challenge experiment, the context consisted of data about the geographic region for which the predictions were made, e.g., historical data of COVID-19 cases and intervention policies; actions were future schedules of intervention policies for the region; and outcomes were predicted future cases of COVID-19 along with the stringency

Often, multilingual language models are trained with the objective to map semantically similar content (in different languages) in the same latent space. In this paper, we show a nuance in this training objective, and find that by changing the language of the input query, we can improve the question answering ability of language models. Our contributions are two-fold. First, we introduce the term Language Specific Knowledge (LSK) to denote queries that are best answered in an "expert language" for a given LLM, thereby enhancing its question-answering ability. We introduce the problem of language selection -- for some queries, language models can perform better when queried in languages other than English, sometimes even better in low-resource languages -- and the goal is to select the optimal language for the query. Second, we introduce simple to strong baselines to test this problem. Additionally, as a first-pass solution to this novel problem, we design LSKExtractor to benchmark the language-specific knowledge present in a language model and then exploit it during inference. To test our framework, we employ three datasets that contain knowledge about both cultural and social behavioral norms. Overall, LSKExtractor achieves up to 10% relative improvement across datasets, and is competitive against strong baselines, while being feasible in real-world settings. Broadly, our research contributes to the open-source development (https://github.com/agarwalishika/LSKExtractor/tree/main) of language models that are inclusive and more aligned with the cultural and linguistic contexts in which they are deployed.

Emotions are a fundamental facet of human experience, varying across individuals, cultural contexts, and nationalities. Given the recent success of Large Language Models (LLMs) as role-playing agents, we examine whether LLMs exhibit emotional stereotypes when assigned nationality-specific personas. Specifically, we investigate how different countries are represented in pre-trained LLMs through emotion attributions and whether these attributions align with cultural norms. To provide a deeper interpretive lens, we incorporate four key cultural dimensions, namely Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Long-Term Orientation, and Individualism, derived from Hofstedes cross-cultural framework. Our analysis reveals significant nationality-based differences, with emotions such as shame, fear, and joy being disproportionately assigned across regions. Furthermore, we observe notable misalignment between LLM-generated and human emotional responses, particularly for negative emotions, highlighting the presence of reductive and potentially biased stereotypes in LLM outputs.

Measuring global AI diffusion remains challenging due to a lack of population-normalized, cross-country usage data. We introduce AI User Share, a novel indicator that estimates the share of each country's working-age population actively using AI tools. Built from anonymized Microsoft telemetry and adjusted for device access and mobile scaling, this metric spans 147 economies and provides consistent, real-time insight into global AI diffusion. We find wide variation in adoption, with a strong correlation between AI User Share and GDP. High uptake is concentrated in developed economies, though usage among internet-connected populations in lower-income countries reveals substantial latent demand. We also detect sharp increases in usage following major product launches, such as DeepSeek in early 2025. While the metric's reliance solely on Microsoft telemetry introduces potential biases related to this user base, it offers an important new lens into how AI is spreading globally. AI User Share enables timely benchmarking that can inform data-driven AI policy.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is diffusing globally at unprecedented speed, but adoption remains uneven. Frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to perform poorly on low-resource languages due to data scarcity. We hypothesize that this performance deficit reduces the utility of AI, thereby slowing adoption in Low-Resource Language Countries (LRLCs). To test this, we use a weighted regression model to isolate the language effect from socioeconomic and demographic factors, finding that LRLCs have a share of AI users that is approximately 20% lower relative to their baseline. These results indicate that linguistic accessibility is a significant, independent barrier to equitable AI diffusion.

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are used to improve clinical and service outcomes, yet evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is dispersed. This protocol outlines methods to quantify the impact of CDSS on patient and healthcare delivery outcomes in LMICs. We will include comparative quantitative designs (randomized trials, controlled before-after, interrupted time series, comparative cohorts) evaluating CDSS in World Bank-defined LMICs. Standalone qualitative studies are excluded; mixed-methods studies are eligible only if they report comparative quantitative outcomes, for which we will extract the quantitative component. Searches (from inception to 30 September 2024) will cover MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Global Health, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, LILACS, African Index Medicus, and IndMED, plus grey sources. Screening and extraction will be performed in duplicate. Risk of bias will be assessed with RoB 2 (randomized trials) and ROBINS-I (non-randomized). Random-effects meta-analysis will be performed where outcomes are conceptually or statistically comparable; otherwise, a structured narrative synthesis will be presented. Heterogeneity will be explored using relative and absolute metrics and a priori subgroups or meta-regression (condition area, care level, CDSS type, readiness proxies, study design).