William Guey

William Guey, Wei Zhang, Pei-Luen Patrick Rau et al.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) harbor systematic biases that are particularly consequential in workplace and HR contexts, where their outputs increasingly influence hiring, job design, and organizational decisions. Existing bias-evaluation approaches remain methodologically fragmented, limiting practitioners' ability to assess deployment risks. Objective: This study introduces BiasLab, a multilingual dual-framing framework to quantify and compare directional output-level bias in LLMs, demonstrated across six workplace and HR-relevant topics. Methods: BiasLab combines mirrored affirmative and reverse prompt pairs, randomized wrapper perturbations, fixed-choice response constraints, and polarity-aligned scoring. Ten LLMs were evaluated across six topics (gender in leadership, employment gap candidates, age in hiring, remote versus office work, four-day versus five-day work weeks, and AI-assisted versus human-only hiring), spanning 12 languages and 30 iterations per framing direction, yielding 43,200 responses. Results: All ten models showed consistent directional preferences across every topic. A recurring asymmetric pattern emerged in which models rejected disfavored claims more strongly than they endorsed their opposites, a distinction invisible to single-frame designs. Conclusions: BiasLab provides a standardized, reproducible instrument for measuring directional preferences across models. Whether a preference constitutes bias in a fairness sense is topic-dependent: for protected attributes such as gender and age it maps onto equal-employment standards, whereas elsewhere it is better described as systematic preference. The framework lets organizations compare and vet models before adopting them for hiring.

William Guey, Pierrick Bougault, Wei Zhang et al.

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.

William Guey, Pierrick Bougault, Wei Zhang et al.

Who sets the rules for artificial intelligence, and on what terms, has become a defining question of global governance. For several years that contest ran through principles and ethics codes; it now runs through institutions. China's proposed World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO) is the most consequential recent entrant and the least examined. We place WAICO within the emerging regime complex for AI and argue that its importance lies not in any single commitment but in the position it is designed to hold. Coding a cross-section of fifteen international AI governance instruments and institutions on how they admit members, how they are organized, and what they prioritize, we find that WAICO's proposed design joins three features that no constituted multilateral body currently combines: membership open to any sovereign state, no values or regime-type test for entry, and an agenda built around development and the global capability divide. The incumbent Western-led bodies gate membership by shared values and concentrate on rights and safety; the universal United Nations bodies are open but anchored in human rights; a development-first agenda is otherwise carried by the regional strategies of the Global South. Among constituted institutions, the only occupant of WAICO's intended position is China's own 2023 precursor initiative. We read this as the formation of a second, still-proposed pole in global AI governance, organized around sovereignty and development rather than rights and safety, and argue that WAICO would be the first standing organization built to anchor it. We report the full coding, state testable expectations against which the claim can be judged as the organization takes shape, and release the dataset for replication.

William Guey, Pierrick Bougault

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly review and revise text, including their own. A documented self-preference bias (models favoring their own generations when acting as judges) raises the question of whether models also resist valid corrections to their own writing. We test this in a setting where "valid" is decided not by another model but by a deterministic verifier: instruction-following revision on IFEval. A model writes a draft; the official IFEval checker confirms the draft violates a constraint and that a candidate edit fixes it; the model then accepts or rejects that edit either as the genuine in-context author or as a fresh model that sees the draft neutrally. Across four mid-tier model families and 85 author-versus-fresh comparisons, we find no detectable self-preference: authors reject verified-good fixes to their own drafts at essentially the same rate as fresh models judging the same drafts (gap -5.1 pp, 95% CI [-12.9, +2.7]). A self-skepticism hint from a smaller pilot did not replicate at scale. The one robust observation is qualitative: when authors do reject a verified-good fix, 97% of their stated reasons are flaw-catching rather than preference, that is, about the character of rejections, not an elevated rate. Effects smaller than ~13 pp cannot be excluded at this sample size.

William Guey, Pierrick Bougault, Vitor D. de Moura et al.

This study systematically analyzes geopolitical bias across 11 prominent Large Language Models (LLMs) by examining their responses to seven critical topics in U.S.-China relations. Utilizing a bilingual (English and Chinese) and dual-framing (affirmative and reverse) methodology, we generated 19,712 prompts designed to detect ideological leanings in model outputs. Responses were quantitatively assessed on a normalized scale from -2 (strongly Pro-China) to +2 (strongly Pro-U.S.) and categorized according to stance, neutrality, and refusal rates. The findings demonstrate significant and consistent ideological alignments correlated with the LLMs' geographic origins; U.S.-based models predominantly favored Pro-U.S. stances, while Chinese-origin models exhibited pronounced Pro-China biases. Notably, language and prompt framing substantially influenced model responses, with several LLMs exhibiting stance reversals based on prompt polarity or linguistic context. Additionally, we introduced comprehensive metrics to evaluate response consistency across languages and framing conditions, identifying variability and vulnerabilities in model behaviors. These results offer practical insights that can guide organizations and individuals in selecting LLMs best aligned with their operational priorities and geopolitical considerations, underscoring the importance of careful model evaluation in politically sensitive applications. Furthermore, the research highlights specific prompt structures and linguistic variations that can strategically trigger distinct responses from models, revealing methods for effectively navigating and influencing LLM outputs.

William Guey, Wei Zhang, Pierrick Bougault et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into high-stakes public safety systems, including emergency call triage and dispatch decision support, yet their demographic fairness in this context remains largely untested. Here we introduce a cross-lingual audit framework that operationalizes the Police Priority Dispatch System as a five-level ordinal classification task and applies a controlled minimal-pair design to isolate the effect of demographic cues. Across 19,800 model outputs spanning 11 frontier models, 15 scenario pairs, three demographic categories (religious appearance, gender, and race), and two languages (English and Mandarin Chinese), we find that demographic bias emerges systematically when incident severity is ambiguous but largely disappears when the operational priority is clearly determined by call content. Bias magnitude varies by demographic axis, with the largest effects observed for religious appearance, followed by gender and race. Critically, bias does not transfer consistently across languages: gender bias is substantially amplified in Mandarin Chinese, whereas race bias is more pronounced in English, revealing cross-lingual asymmetries that aggregate analyses obscure. In several scenarios, demographic cues produce counter-directional effects, challenging simple stereotype-amplification accounts of model behavior. These findings suggest that bias in LLM-based dispatch is not a fixed property of models alone, but arises from the interaction between demographic signals, contextual ambiguity, and language. Beyond these empirical results, the proposed framework provides a scalable audit infrastructure that enables deploying agencies to evaluate candidate models on jurisdiction-relevant scenarios prior to real-world adoption.