语言影响大模型对历史发明权的回答，暴露了算法中的文化偏见。
Same question, different history: language, national identity, and credit in large language models
- 用12种语言提问75,896次，测试模型对争议发明归属的回应差异。
- 非英语母语者相关发明人更易在对应语言中被提及，英美主导者则始终占优。
- 揭示大模型是文化记忆的分布式系统，语言决定历史可见性。
谁发明了无线电？是俄罗斯的波波夫还是意大利的马可尼？电话是贝尔在美国的成就，还是梅乌奇在意大利的发明？印刷术属于中国的毕昇还是德国的古腾堡？答案不仅取决于史实，还受语言与视角影响。我们分析了11个主流大语言模型在21个争议发明上的表现，涵盖12种语言，共75,896条响应。尽管模型普遍承认归属存在争议，但提问语言会系统性影响被呈现的发明人。非主流语言关联的发明人更可能在对应语言中被提及，而盎格鲁-撒克逊主导者则在所有语言中保持稳定。这一模式在控制回答长度、模型差异、历史知名度及国家纪念程度后依然存在。语言如同开关，激活不同国家版本的历史叙事，导致同一问题生成不同民族记忆。这表明大语言模型作为分布式文化记忆系统，语言决定了哪些历史得以显现，构成一种计算化的日常民族主义。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Who invented the radio, Russia's Alexander Popov or Italy's Guglielmo Marconi? Was the telephone the achievement of Bell in the United States or Meucci in Italy? Does printing belong to China's Bi Sheng or Germany's Gutenberg? The answer depends not only on historical record but also on language and perspective. We analyse eleven widely used large language models across 21 disputed inventions and discoveries, evaluated in twelve languages and 75,896 responses. While models generally acknowledge that credit is contested, query language systematically affects which claimant is surfaced. Lower-status claimants are more likely to appear when questions are asked in their associated language, whereas dominant Anglophone figures remain stable across languages. These patterns persist after controlling for response length, model differences, historical prominence, and levels of national commemoration. Language thus acts as a switch that activates different national versions of the same history, producing systematically different national memories from the same question. We interpret this as evidence that large language models function as distributed systems of cultural memory, where language conditions which histories become visible, contributing to a computational form of banal nationalism.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。