The paper examines how Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI (GenAI) are biased against less-spoken languages and deepen the digital language divide. Drawing on critical sociolinguistics and computational linguistics, it investigates the intersections of technology, language policy, and linguistic variation using South Tyrolean dialects and Kurdish varieties as case studies. The authors explore technical solutions for handling non‑standard language and assess whether such approaches can support democratic and decolonial digital strategies with policy implications.
arXiv:2607. 07891v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Roy Harris's Integrationist linguistics offers a compelling critique of the referentialist tradition embedded deep at the heart of computational approaches to language, arguing that language is not a code that maps onto a pre-given world but a situated, bipartite activity oriented toward prospective joint action.
arXiv:2611.07984v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language-generating AI systems are no longer only objects of linguistic interaction: their outputs increasingly re-enter the communicative and instit...
The paper argues that new interactional concepts are needed to understand how humans change when engaging with large language models (LLMs). Drawing on enactive theory and the notion of Linguistic Bodies, it proposes that humans incorporate LLMs both as tools that enable specific skills and as linguistic partners that shape identity and language use. The authors introduce the idea of "susceptive sense‑making" to describe the heightened semiotic labor involved when friction is absent in these interactions, and suggest that this dynamic may affect users’ autonomy and development.
The paper analyzes the distribution of artificial intelligence resources across 6,003 languages, revealing that a small number of languages dominate and that disparities are widening exponentially. It compares the diffusion of AI with earlier information technologies, noting a hype-driven spread pattern. The authors introduce the Language AI Readiness Index (EQUATE) to map technological, socio-economic, and infrastructural prerequisites for AI deployment, aiming to guide equitable diffusion of language AI.
arXiv:2606. 28333v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: \begin{quote} The biases in Large Language Models' (LLMs) outputs remain inadequately theorised, particularly from the perspective of the Global South.
arXiv:2607. 06544v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As Artificial Intelligence (AI) makes inroads into different parts of the Indian subcontinent, there is significant interest in studying how AI impacts the linguistic and cultural foundations of this civilization.
arXiv:2607. 25620v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Quattrociocchi and colleagues warn that the fluent outputs of large language models may allow linguistic plausibility to substitute for epistemic evaluation, producing the condition they call *Epistemia*: the experience of possessing knowledge without undertaking the practices through which judgment would ordinarily be warranted.
The paper proposes new conditions for philosophers to engage with citizen deliberation in the AI era, focusing on how Large Language Models (LLMs) could support democratic processes such as citizen assemblies. It outlines the Democratic Commons project, an interdisciplinary effort that evaluates LLMs against five democratic principles, with a central concern about political bias and the democratic use of AI in experimental participatory settings. The study emphasizes the need for philosophical and political theory foundations to meaningfully assess AI’s role in democratic participation.
The article presents a minimal working model for large language model (LLM) systems, emphasizing four key distinctions—pretraining vs. deployment, distribution vs. samples, types of memory, and task competence vs. agency. Using this framework, it diagnoses six common misconceptions about LLMs (next‑token prediction, regression to the mean, training‑data regurgitation, model memory, alignment, and understanding), explaining what each misconception captures correctly, where it conflates distinctions, and the implications for evaluation, design, and governance. The model is applied to AI policy language, illustrating how policy can misrepresent these distinctions and offering a diagnostic toolkit to correct such errors.
arXiv:2607. 11292v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as conversational tutors, they risk institutionalizing systemic inequalities.
The paper investigates the linguistic characteristics of ChatGPT-generated text, comparing it to 1,000 scientific publications and exploring its relation to concepts of ‘bullshit’ in political speech and workplace contexts. By applying hypothesis‑testing methods, the authors demonstrate that a statistical model of bullshit can link the artificial bullshit produced by ChatGPT to the political and workplace functions of bullshit observed in natural human language.
arXiv:2605.24842v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: This paper examines how the labour of translators has been transformed into foundational data capital for the age of artificial intelligence (AI)....