Saltar al contenido
Hub Nexus
Actualizado

AutorAún sin autorAsumirla

¿Ves algo que mejorar? Propón un cambio.

Apoyo

Esta página es pública.

Whether a comment is offensive depends on who reads it, and existing AI tools for detecting offensive text rely on labels that ignore that. A study tested it with 4,309 participants from 21 countries in eight cultural regions, who rated social media comments in English. People differed widely by region, and by individual moral values.

Distribution of offensiveness labels given by annotators from different countries

Offensiveness labels by country; annotators from China, Brazil and Egypt gave significantly different labels (Davani et al., CC BY 4.0).

How it worked

Participants rated 40 items each on a five-point scale from not offensive at all to extremely offensive, five of them quality-control checks; after those checks, 4,295 participants remained. The 4,554 items came from two public Jigsaw datasets of comments labeled for toxicity, a random, more ambiguous set, a set mentioning groups defined by gender, sexual orientation or religion, and a set with moral sentiments. Half the participants received a definition of "extremely offensive language"; the other half used their own sense of it. Each person also filled out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, which scores six values: Care, Equality, Proportionality, Authority, Loyalty and Purity. Each item had labels from at least three people in every region.

Study 1: regions disagree

Offensiveness ratings differed significantly by region. Arab culture (average 1.19) and Latin America (1.13) rated most offensive, and the Sinosphere and Oceania (0.80 each) least. Of 28 pairs of regions, 25 differed significantly. The three pairs that did not were Sub-Saharan Africa and Indian culture, Western Europe and North America, and the Sinosphere and Oceania. The gap held after accounting for age, gender and socioeconomic status, and giving a definition narrowed it but did not remove it.

FindingDetail
Country levelEgypt, Brazil, India and Argentina all averaged above 1.2; China averaged below 0.6, though a rater pool skewed toward ages 30 to 50 may partly explain that
Cultural similarity to the USThe more similar a country to the United States, the fewer comments it called offensive, though the effect was not statistically significant
Cultural dimensionsCountries higher in uncertainty avoidance, individualism, femininity and short-term orientation rated more comments offensive; power distance and indulgence made no significant difference

Study 2: moral values matter

Region and country explain little of the variation: individual differences account for 39.5 percent, country for 2.9 percent and region for 0.7 percent. So the team tested whether moral values explain the regional gaps. They found that Care and Purity significantly mediate them: regions whose people score higher on those values tend to rate more as offensive. Looking at individuals, someone who scores higher on Care than their country's average rates comments as more offensive, and the same holds for Purity, with a smaller effect. Care varies less between regions, since most people score high on it, while Purity varies more.

Annotators' Care scores by region and their link to reported offensiveness

Care scores vary across regions and mediate regional differences in offensiveness ratings (Davani et al., CC BY 4.0).

Study 3: what it means for AI

The authors compared their ratings with the Jigsaw labels and the Perspective API, a commercial toxicity detector. Both match the regions' majority votes only weakly, best in Latin America, the Arab world and Sub-Saharan Africa and worst in the Sinosphere and Oceania. Perspective API also agrees more with annotators who score high on Care. The authors say that fits crowd-worker recruitment that leans on the Global South, but they flag the low match with North American raters as a concern, since the tool is probably used mostly by North American websites. Both measure toxicity rather than offensiveness, so some mismatch is expected.

Correlation of Perspective API labels with the majority vote of annotators in each region

Correlation between Perspective API labels and the majority vote of raters in each region (Davani et al., CC BY 4.0).

Why it matters

The authors conclude that judging offense is a moral judgment shaped by culture, and that datasets and models reflect some value systems over others. They call for culturally informed data collection, more diverse rater pools and community involvement in aligning AI with local norms, while warning that cultural values can conflict with the equity of marginalized groups within a society. The key question, they write, is whose values a model should follow.

Sources

IdiomasEnglish

Licencia: CC BY 4.0 · Adaptado de arxiv.org

Puntos de vista

Comentarios

Spinner Logo
Versión: 2CC0 1.0 (dominio público)
The runaway star that left the Tarantula Nebula
Versión: 2CC0 1.0 (dominio público)
The Eagle Nebula, seen in the infrared
Versión: 2CC0 1.0 (dominio público)
The Cosmic Cliffs are not cliffs
Versión: 2CC0 1.0 (dominio público)
The recommended targets are real, but the largest health gain is between doing nothing and doing a little. That is the part worth knowing if you are starting from nothing.
Versión: 2CC0 1.0 (dominio público)
Sleep is not one state but a cycle through several, each doing different work. Most sleep disorders are a failure to complete that cycle rather than a shortage of hours.
Versión: 2CC0 1.0 (dominio público)
Four nebulae that revealed the shape of our galaxy