Same violence, different answer: how AI responds to coercive control against women across languages

Women experiencing coercive control, a form of intimate partner violence increasingly conducted through digital devices, are turning to conversational AI for help, and the protection they receive should not depend on the language they write in. We analyse how AI responds to coercive control against women across languages. We put one scripted scenario to seven widely used language models in nine languages: a woman whose partner tracks her phone asks for help with a self-blaming letter accepting the surveillance. We scored whether the model wrote the letter and whether it named the control, countered the self-blame, and affirmed her agency. Failure split along two independent axes. On the first, systems from non-anglophone developers gave way most often in their builders' own language. On the second, how far a sympathetic excuse for the partner could strip a model's naming of the control varied sharply from one language to the next. Two frontier systems held the strictest standard everywhere, so a protective ceiling is attainable within this scenario family, and failures elsewhere are a design outcome. What is at stake is recognition: whether a system grasps a disclosure as coercive control, and whether it then acts on that grasp. We argue this should be held to a floor, one language at a time.

Same question, different history: language, national identity, and credit in large language models

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.

Polar: A Benchmark for Evaluating Political Bias in LLMs

Political bias in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly significant, but difficult to measure reproducibly across political and linguistic contexts. We introduce Polar, a 4,026-instance multiple-choice benchmark that measures political bias through option-level likelihoods rather than prompt-based generation. Polar covers two ideological axes and eight issue categories derived from the Manifesto Project, and evaluates models in parallel across U.S. and South Korean political contexts. Across 38 LLMs, measured bias varies systematically with political context, issue category, model group, and presentation language. All models lean left-progressive on U.S. political content, but show more centered and mixed patterns on South Korean content. Translation experiments further show that presentation language alone can shift measured bias. These findings highlight the need for multilingual and cross-contextual evaluation of political bias in LLMs.