When AI Misses Religion: A Bias in Ethical Guidance

In the increasingly complex world of AI, one thing is clear: large language models (LLMs) are becoming go-to sources for guidance on everything from moral dilemmas to existential musings. Yet, a recent exploration into how these models address ethical questions reveals a glaring omission. Despite religion's historical role in shaping human values, LLMs often skip religious perspectives when answering everyday ethical questions.

Unpacking the Omissive Bias

Researchers have labeled this gap as 'omissive bias.' To measure it, they introduced the AllFaith Religious Representation Benchmark. This tool assesses whether LLMs acknowledge religion when posed with questions about grief, forgiveness, relationships, and more. Surprisingly, the study evaluated 27 models and found a consistent shortfall in religious references, especially when compared to human expectations.

The omission isn't uniform. Models tend to invoke religion for abstract topics like meaning, death, and truth. But practical matters, grief, marriage, family conflict, addiction, the models fall short. Ask the street vendor in Medellín. She'll explain stablecoins better than any whitepaper, but discussing grief, she'd likely lean on her faith. This is where LLMs drop the ball.

The Real-World Impact

So, why does this matter? In Buenos Aires, stablecoins aren't speculation. They're survival. Similarly, for many, religion isn't just an abstract set of beliefs. It's a survival toolkit for life's challenges. When AI systems ignore religious perspectives, they're not just missing a checkbox, they're missing a essential part of human experience.

Now, some might argue that AI should remain neutral, avoiding potentially divisive topics like religion. But isn't there a risk in sanitizing these models to the point that they become disconnected from the very people they aim to assist? AI should enhance human experience, not dilute it to a bland, one-size-fits-all narrative.

Where do we go from here? For starters, AI developers could incorporate a more diverse set of perspectives, including religious ones, to create models that aren't only smarter but also more empathetic. The remittance corridor is where AI actually works, bridging gaps and connecting worlds. Why can't it do the same for moral and ethical guidance?

In the end, Latin America doesn't need AI missionaries. It needs better rails. Let's make sure those rails support the full breadth of human experience, religion included.