Lost in Translation: How Universal Ethical Values Fail to Translate Across Global Contexts
Interviews with 14 AI experts across 10 countries show that 'fairness' and 'transparency' mean different things in different places
Global AI ethics frameworks from bodies like the OECD and UNESCO assume values such as fairness, transparency, and privacy can be applied the same way everywhere. Interviewing 14 AI experts across 10 countries, the researchers found these values were reinterpreted through local moral logics, creating what they call 'translation gaps' between global frameworks and local practice. They propose moving toward plural governance that redistributes who gets to define these values.
METAL LAB explanatory visual
AI Ethics Translation Model: from universal principles to local governance
Evidence statusMeasured results reported
- Global principlesFairness, transparency, privacy and other values articulated by bodies like OECD and UNESCO as broadly applicable
- Local interpretationExperts reinterpret these values through infrastructural constraints, extractive practices, and the 'mystification' of AI in their own context
- Alignment or translation gapReinterpreted meanings either match the original principle (alignment) or diverge from it (translation gap)
- Culturally grounded governanceRecognizing translation gaps informs governance that redistributes epistemic authority and incorporates local knowledge
What they did
- The team conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 experts working in AI development, policy, or governance across 10 countries spanning Africa, Asia, Latin America, Oceania, Europe, North America, and the Caribbean.
- Interviews ran over a seven-month period, each lasting 45-60 minutes over Zoom, and included a structured probe asking participants to define five widely cited values -- bias, explainability, fairness, transparency, and privacy -- based on their own cultural context.
- Findings showed AI deployment is shaped by unequal infrastructural conditions (electricity, connectivity, devices), extractive data practices, and a 'mystification' of the technology that together shape how risks and opportunities are perceived.
- Participants reinterpreted privacy as collective and relational rather than individual, transparency as trust-building accountability rather than technical disclosure, and fairness as equity in access and representation rather than parity in outcomes.
- The researchers frame these mismatches as 'translation gaps' between encoded global ethics frameworks and situated local practices, and propose pathways toward plural, power-aware governance.
| ID | Country | Region | Sector | Area of Expertise |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Mexico | North/Central America | Industry | AI |
| P2 | Kenya | Africa | Tech Founder (Non-profit) | AI / Content Moderation |
| P3 | New Zealand | Oceania | Industry | AI |
| P4 | USA | North America | Researcher & Founder | AI |
| P5 | New Zealand | Oceania | Research Fellow | AI |
| P6 | Zambia | Africa | Academia | Journalism / Emerging Media |
| P7 | Bangladesh | South Asia | Academia | HCAI |
| P8 | Ghana | Africa | Industry / Co-founder | AI |
| P9 | Bangladesh | South Asia | Academia | HCI / AI |
| P10 | Nigeria | Africa | Researcher | HCI |
| P11 | Nigeria | Africa | Researcher | HCAI |
| P12 | France | Europe | Academia | AI Ethics |
| P13 | Jamaica | Caribbean | Academia | Humanities |
| P14 | Bangladesh | South Asia | Research Fellow | HCAI |
Findings
- Participants described being structurally excluded from AI benefits due to gaps in electricity, connectivity, and device access.
- Core values -- privacy, transparency, fairness, among five probed values -- were reinterpreted differently depending on participants' cultural context (e.g., privacy understood as collective and relational rather than an individual right).
- Multiple accounts described extractive practices, including data collected without consent and underpaid, psychologically harmful labor such as data annotation and content moderation.
- Participants reported representation gaps, such as the absence of Swahili-language or African-accented chatbots, leading to feelings of exclusion and symbolic erasure.
- Participants also reported opportunities, such as mobile banking and e-governance extending access, and AI supporting learning and community empowerment when aligned with local needs.
Where it can be used
- Can inform a process for re-defining ethical values with local experts and communities before deploying AI products or policies across multiple countries.
- Can serve as a checklist item when drafting AI ethics guidelines, prompting a review of whether terms like 'fairness' or 'transparency' are being treated as culturally fixed.
- Can inform a review of labor conditions and consent practices in data collection and annotation pipelines.
Limits and open work
- The purposive sample of 14 experts was chosen for depth of qualitative analysis, not statistical generalizability; findings are theoretically transferable insights rather than representative accounts of entire cultures.
- Findings rely on self-reported accounts, which the authors note may differ from how AI ethics is actually negotiated in practice; they call for future ethnographic or longitudinal studies.
- The proposed plural governance pathways remain primarily analytical; future work is needed to design concrete mechanisms balancing local interpretations with globally shared commitments to human rights and safety.
- Participants were defined as 'experts' with deep AI and cultural engagement, so perspectives from non-expert or marginalized community members were not captured in this study.
Why it matters
AI ethics guidelines issued by governments and major tech companies are often built on Western, individualistic assumptions that may not hold once deployed globally, and this study offers empirical evidence of exactly where and how that breaks down. Anyone designing AI policy, products, or audits for multiple regions can use this as a caution against treating terms like 'fairness' or 'transparency' as having one fixed meaning.
Terms in this paper
- translation gap · the mismatch that emerges when a global AI ethics principle is reinterpreted locally and no longer matches its original meaning
- plural governance · a governance approach where multiple value systems participate in decision-making rather than one standard interpretation being enforced
- epistemic authority · the power to determine what counts as valid or true knowledge
- participatory extraction · involving communities only as data sources without giving them veto power, so their knowledge strengthens global systems without granting them structural control
Original abstract (English)
AI ethics frameworks treat values such as fairness, transparency, and accountability as universal and uniformly operationalizable across contexts. We examined how 14 experts across 10 countries made sense of AI in practice, reinterpreted core values, and envisioned governance alternatives. We found that AI deployment is characterized by structurally unequal conditions, marked by infrastructural constraints, extractive practices, and a "mystification" of technology, which fundamentally shape perceptions of risks and opportunities. Our findings reveal that experts reinterpret values to fit local moral logics: privacy as collective and relational rather than individual; transparency as trust-building accountability rather than technical disclosure; and fairness as equity in access and representation rather than parity in outcomes. We identify these as translation gaps between encoded global frameworks and situated local practices. Finally, we propose pathways toward plural governance that redistributes epistemic authority and treats ethical negotiation as an ongoing, context-sensitive process rather than a settled technical standard.
Read on arXivLatest papers
- AgentMercury: Your Agent Can Synthesize Verifiable Environments for Business Scenarios at scaleAn AI system builds whole business worlds instead of single tasks, so training grounds can scale on their own
- FlavourBench: Ranking Frontier Language Models with Executable Culinary Ground TruthA benchmark that grades AI cooking decisions with a frozen scoring table instead of a human or AI judge
- When Vocabulary Comprehension Fails Clinical Reasoning: Evaluating Therapy Bots' Safety Risks for Generation AlphaTherapy chatbots understand teen slang but still miss the crisis hidden inside it
- Hadith computational science in the age of large language models: a critical narrative reviewA critical review asks which AI advances in hadith studies are real progress and which just look good on narrow benchmarks
- SWE-bench Science: Can Coding Agents Resolve Engineering Tasks in Science?AI coding agents were tested on fixing real scientific software, and even the best one failed more than half the time
- FlashPrefill V2: Block-Sparse Prefill Attention for Long-Context LLM ServingMaking sparse attention fast enough and accurate enough for real LLM serving, not just papers
- PolicyGuide: From Guarding One Action to Guiding the Whole Workflow for Policy-Compliant LLM AgentsMaking customer-service AI agents follow the whole procedure, not just avoid one bad action
- EXIMO: VLM Guided Exploration of VLA PoliciesTeaching a robot new chores without human teleoperation, by letting a chatty AI supervise it
Latest from METAL LAB
- Claude web and desktop now stream long answers 4x smoother
- Hugging Face reportedly courted for $13B+ buyout, but founder sounds unconvinced
- Mistral and Saudi Arabia's HUMAIN to Co-Develop Arabic AI Models
- Liquid AI open-sources on-device benchmark Pipette
- GPT-5.6 integration cuts per-task cost 82% in coding tool Kiro
Figures: Ozioma C. Oguine et al., arXiv:2608.20490, CC BY 4.0