In 2018, a groundbreaking study from MIT Media Lab exposed severe biases in commercial facial recognition systems. The research found that these systems had an error rate of 34.7% when identifying dark-skinned women, compared to less than 1% for light-skinned men. This stark discrepancy highlighted an uncomfortable truth: artificial intelligence (AI) is not a neutral force. Instead, it mirrors and amplifies the cultural biases embedded in the data it learns from.
Artificial intelligence systems have become integral to our daily digital interactions, powering everything from search engines to voice assistants, content recommendations to automated decision-making tools. However, as these technologies proliferate globally, a critical issue has emerged: cultural bias embedded within AI systems fundamentally shapes who benefits from these technologies and who is marginalized by them.
This article explores cultural bias in AI systems, examining its fundamental nature, root causes, impact on user experiences, and strategies for creating more equitable AI through decolonization.
For UX professionals, this is not just a technical issue but an ethical one. Bias in AI-driven UX can lead to unfair, discriminatory, and alienating digital experiences. As designers and researchers, the responsibility falls on us to identify, challenge, and mitigate these biases to ensure that digital platforms are inclusive and representative of the global population.
Cultural bias in AI refers to the systematic favoritism toward certain cultural perspectives, norms, values, and ways of knowing that become encoded in artificial intelligence systems. These biases manifest when AI systems perform better for users from dominant cultural backgrounds while delivering suboptimal experiences for those from marginalized or non-Western cultures. This bias is not merely a technical issue but reflects deeper power imbalances in who designs technology and whose needs are prioritized in that design process.
At its core, cultural bias emerges when AI systems treat one cultural perspective—typically Western, Anglophone, and rooted in specific socioeconomic contexts—as the universal default rather than recognizing it as one of many valid cultural frameworks. This default setting creates an inherently uneven technological landscape where some users must adapt to systems not designed with their realities in mind.
The concentration of AI development in Western technological hubs, particularly in the United States and Europe, creates a natural skew toward Western cultural assumptions. When development teams lack diversity, technologies inevitably reflect the limited cultural perspectives represented within those teams. Key decision-makers in AI development often share similar educational backgrounds, socioeconomic statuses, and cultural frameworks, creating an echo.
Example: Google’s speech recognition systems have historically performed poorly for African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) and non-Western languages.
A 2020 business insider study found that speech recognition software from Google, Apple, and Amazon had an error rate of 35% for black speakers compared to 19% for white speakers.
AI systems learn from the data they are trained on. When this training data overrepresents certain populations while underrepresenting others, the resulting systems inevitably perform better for the overrepresented groups. Language models trained primarily on English text struggle with nuances in other languages; computer vision systems trained mostly on images of lighter-skinned individuals perform poorly on darker skin tones. These data imbalances reflect historical patterns of who has had access to technology and whose experiences have been documented digitally.
Example: AI models used for diagnosing diseases sometimes fail to detect conditions in underrepresented groups. An algorithm used in U.S. hospitals to predict which patients needed extra medical care was found to systematically favor white patients over Black patients, leading to unequal healthcare outcomes.
Today's technological landscape inherits and often reinforces colonial power structures. Just as historical colonialism extracted resources and imposed cultural norms on colonized populations, "digital colonialism" describes how technology often extracts data from global populations while imposing systems designed according to Western priorities and values. The flow of technological influence remains predominantly from Global North to Global South, with minimal reciprocal influence.
Example: Large tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon extract vast amounts of data from users in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This data is then analyzed and sold for profit, often with minimal benefit to the regions where it was collected. For instance, projects like Facebook's FreeBasics in Africa aim to increase connectivity but also facilitate data harvesting.
Commercial pressures often prioritize serving majority markets over ensuring equitable performance across all potential users. When development resources are limited, companies may rationally focus on optimizing for their largest or most profitable user segments, inadvertently deepening disparities in system performance across different cultural contexts.
Cultural bias manifests across numerous dimensions of AI-powered user experiences:
Natural language processing systems exhibit dramatic performance disparities across languages. While major European languages receive significant attention, thousands of languages spoken by billions of people worldwide remain underserved by AI systems. Even within supported languages, systems often struggle with dialectal variations, regional expressions, and cultural contexts that differ from the dominant varieties represented in training data.
Users of less-resourced languages face multiple disadvantages: fewer AI tools available in their preferred language, lower accuracy in the tools that do exist, and often the imposition of cultural frameworks from dominant languages when translations occur. These limitations create fundamentally different user experiences across linguistic communities.
Example: Despite India having over 120 major languages and 22 officially recognized languages, many of these languages lack adequate support in AI systems. For instance, languages like Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, and Punjabi have limited resources compared to English, leading to less accurate AI tools and a lack of cultural relevance in AI outputs**.**
Computer vision systems consistently demonstrate performance disparities across demographic groups. Facial recognition systems achieve lower accuracy rates for women, people with darker skin tones, and older individuals. These disparities mean that users from certain demographic groups encounter higher error rates when using biometric authentication, photo organization tools, or other vision-based applications.
Beyond recognition accuracy, these systems may also perpetuate harmful stereotypes in image classification, inappropriately tagging images of certain ethnic groups or misinterpreting cultural contexts in visual content. These failures create not just frustrating user experiences but potentially harmful ones that reinforce negative stereotypes.
Example: Facial recognition systems trained predominantly on Caucasian faces often have lower accuracy for Southeast Asian faces, which can lead to higher error rates in biometric authentication and other applications.
AI systems often miss crucial cultural context when making recommendations or moderating content. Content moderation algorithms trained primarily on Western cultural norms may inappropriately flag or remove content that is acceptable within other cultural contexts. Recommendation systems may fail to understand cultural preferences or connections between content items that would be obvious to users from specific cultural backgrounds.
This context misalignment creates user experiences that feel disconnected from local realities. Users must adapt to the cultural assumptions embedded in these systems rather than having systems that understand and respond appropriately to their cultural contexts.
Example: Facebook and Instagram's AI moderation mistakenly remove non-Western political discussions. In Myanmar, Facebook's AI failed to recognize hate speech against the Rohingya community due to poor moderation tools for Burmese, contributing to real-world violence.
Search engines, knowledge graphs, and information retrieval systems often privilege Western knowledge systems and sources while marginalizing alternative epistemologies. Information from Western academic institutions and publications receives greater prominence, while traditional knowledge systems and non-Western sources of expertise receive less visibility and authority in these systems.
This bias shapes what information users can easily discover and what perspectives they encounter, potentially reinforcing a narrow view of what constitutes valid knowledge and whose expertise matters.
The cumulative effect of these biases creates fundamentally different user experiences across cultural contexts:
For users whose cultural backgrounds align with system assumptions, AI interactions feel intuitive and natural. For others, using these same systems requires additional cognitive load to navigate interfaces and interactions not designed with their cultural context in mind. These users must constantly "translate" between their natural modes of interaction and the system's expectations.
When AI systems consistently misunderstand or misrepresent users' cultural realities, it creates a sense of technological alienation—a feeling that these advanced technologies were not built "for people like me." This alienation can reduce technology adoption among affected communities and limit the potential benefits of AI across diverse populations.
Repeated experiences with culturally biased systems erode user trust. When AI consistently performs poorly for certain cultural groups, members of those groups understandably develop skepticism about AI technologies more broadly. This trust deficit can be difficult to overcome even as systems improve.
Addressing cultural bias requires fundamental changes in how AI systems are conceptualized, developed, and deployed. Several approaches offer promising pathways forward:
Meaningful diversity within AI development teams—across cultural backgrounds, disciplinary perspectives, and lived experiences—provides the foundation for more inclusive AI. This diversity must extend beyond token representation to ensure diverse perspectives have genuine influence over key decisions throughout the development process.
Organizations must create environments where team members from underrepresented backgrounds can meaningfully shape technological directions rather than simply implementing visions determined by homogeneous leadership groups. This requires addressing structural barriers to participation in AI development, from educational access to workplace cultures.
Example: Google’s AI Ethics team initially had prominent researchers like Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell advocating for diverse perspectives, but their dismissal highlighted systemic barriers. In contrast, initiatives like Black in AI and Masakhane (an African NLP research community) actively foster diversity by supporting researchers from underrepresented backgrounds.
Moving beyond simply diversifying existing development structures, participatory design approaches actively involve diverse communities in the creation process. Rather than designing for marginalized communities, this approach designs with them, recognizing their expertise about their own needs and contexts.
Co-creation frameworks establish genuine partnerships between technical experts and communities, ensuring that AI development addresses authentic community priorities rather than external assumptions about what communities need. These approaches recognize that technological expertise alone is insufficient without contextual understanding of the cultural environments where technologies will be deployed.
Example: The Aarogya Setu COVID-19 tracking app in India faced criticism for not including marginalized communities in its design, leading to accessibility issues. In contrast, the Indigenous Protocols and AI Working Group collaborates with Indigenous communities to design AI systems that align with Indigenous ways of knowing, ensuring culturally relevant and ethical AI solutions.
Truly decolonizing AI requires questioning fundamental assumptions about what AI is and how it should function. Indigenous data sovereignty movements, for example, offer alternative frameworks for thinking about data ownership and governance that challenge extractive data practices common in commercial AI development.
Several initiatives worldwide are developing AI approaches grounded in non-Western philosophical traditions and knowledge systems. These efforts imagine AI that reflects diverse cultural values rather than imposing a single set of technological values globally.
Example: The Maori Data Sovereignty Network (Te Mana Raraunga) in New Zealand advocates for Indigenous control over data collection and AI applications, ensuring AI development aligns with Maori values. Similarly, Japan’s Society 5.0 framework integrates AI with human-centric values rather than purely economic or extractive goals.
Rather than aiming for one-size-fits-all solutions, AI systems can be designed with cultural adaptability as a core feature. This means creating systems that recognize cultural context and adjust their behavior accordingly, respecting different cultural norms and expectations.
Culturally adaptive systems might offer different interaction patterns based on cultural context, incorporate multiple knowledge frameworks, or explicitly acknowledge the cultural limitations of their design. This approach recognizes cultural diversity as a resource to be respected rather than a problem to be solved.
Example: Baidu’s AI-powered voice assistants have been designed to understand regional Chinese dialects, whereas many Western AI systems primarily support English or dominant languages.
Addressing cultural bias also requires inclusive governance structures that ensure diverse perspectives influence AI policy, standards, and regulation. International efforts to establish AI ethics guidelines must move beyond simply translating Western ethical frameworks into other languages and genuinely incorporate diverse ethical traditions and priorities.
Community oversight mechanisms can provide accountability by giving affected communities meaningful input into how AI systems are deployed in their contexts. These governance approaches recognize that decisions about AI development and deployment are inherently political and should reflect diverse stakeholder interests.
Example: The OECD AI Principles have attempted to include non-Western perspectives, but critics argue that they still center Western ethical frameworks. More inclusive governance efforts include UNESCO’s AI ethics guidelines, which emphasize Indigenous and Global South perspectives. Additionally, Data Trusts—such as those proposed in Canada—allow communities to collectively decide how their data is used, shifting control away from corporations.
The divide between Western nations and the rest of the world in AI development is glaring—and frankly, disheartening. AI systems, which should be tools of progress, are instead reinforcing global inequalities by prioritizing Western perspectives while sidelining the cultural realities of billions. The goal of good UX is to create experiences that work for everyone, but when AI is built with ingrained biases, it stops being inclusive and becomes exclusive design. This is the opposite of what universal design and user-centered thinking stand for.
Decolonizing AI isn’t just about fixing datasets or tweaking algorithms; it’s about reshaping how technology interacts with culture. No AI system is neutral, and if we want truly inclusive AI, cultural diversity must be embedded at every stage of development—not as an afterthought but as a guiding principle.
For AI creators, this is more than an ethical responsibility; it’s a strategic necessity. AI is expanding across global markets, and systems that respect cultural diversity will always outperform those that impose a singular worldview. The real challenge is redistributing power in AI—giving marginalized communities a voice in shaping the technologies that affect their lives.
This work isn’t easy, but it’s necessary. If AI is to serve humanity in all its complexity, it must embrace cultural diversity, not erase it. The future of AI shouldn’t be about forcing people to adapt to its limitations—it should be about AI adapting to the people it serves.
India is sitting on a creative goldmine—centuries-old craftsmanship, textiles packed with stories, and art passed through generations.
When I started working in the creative business, you didn’t have to look hard to find legends.
In 2024, design wasn’t just about looking good—it was about keeping up with what people cared about, how tech advanced, and where culture headed.
344 Corning AVE, Milipitas
California 95035
Baron House, 29, 80 Feet Rd,
S.T. Bed, 4th Block, Koramangala,
Bengaluru, Karnataka 560034
