I am not a Chinese speaker but my understanding is that all of the models have substantially different behavior in Chinese, to the degree that it's kind of like a second model. Would be interested in hearing more if anyone has direct experience.
Relatedly, when chatting with frontier models about science education content design, I've found it very helpful to mix in Chinese education terms. In English, for example, NGSS is such a massive attractor, discussing nearby topics often yields NGSS "slop". And "estimation" (educational) in the US means one (dysfunctional:) thing, which similarly distracts. Perhaps if AIs become increasingly multilingual, but remain weak at deep conceptual reasoning, it may be fruitful to have multilingual thesauruses, to use language-associated cultural conceptual differences as a way to convey conceptual nuances with which LLMs otherwise struggle?
For that particular attractor, even German or Spanish or so might help avoid it? Or perhaps even just using British English?
The one criticism of NGSS I found from a quick skim of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Science_Standa... is that it teaches evolution.
What does "estimation" mean in the US?!
"Estimation" as a skill in US education, primary school on, is pervasively about point estimates - single numbers. Bounding, a range of safe/reasonable/likely/possible numbers, is very rare. In Fermi questions/problems also.
Even in such goodness as Sanjoy Mahajan's Art of Insight and Street-Fighting[1]... the only only "bound" mentioned is "Printed and bound in [USA]", and there is no "round".[2]
In contrast, IIUC, China is pervasively about "Da Gu" and "Xiao Gu", "round up" and "round down". Point estimates are secondary. Lower and upper bounds are apparently even a cultural concept: an individual's degree vs capability/fate; policy equity vs excellence; economic targets.
In education, my understanding is point estimates have much poorer conversational/collaborative dynamics than range estimates. Bounding lends itself to incremental collaboration. "Can anyone suggest another low or high bound?". Discussions around point estimates seem usually merely about the collection of individual estimates.
> NGSS
Ah, NGSS isn't bad particularly. I meant that discussion/mention of NGSS appears so very much in English training data, that AI chat on topics related to NGSS seem to draw regurgitations of NGSS. AI "slop" in the sense that "ignore NGSS, just reason from a superset of its underlying concepts"... isn't an LLM strength.
> hard to understand
Sorry - Thanks for asking!
[1] open access: https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5345/The-Art-of-In... https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5339/Street-Fighti... [2] search "bound": https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Art_of_Insight_in_S... https://www.google.com/books/edition/Street_Fighting_Mathema...
Yes, and that brings in a shit load of slop to the problem space from the creationists.
Like how the word life will have a strong correlation with death, the word animate, while it also means alive will have a much less strong correlation with death.
Or do you mean professionally... Instead of merely searching for "ways to do X", one might translate the query into a couple of languages, and translate the results, to get a broader culture sampling. Hmm... That seems something an AI-based search could integrate smoothly - cross cultural insights as a normal part of search results?
While there's a lot of diversity in policy and culture among US regions and states, contrasting them isn't leveraged much. Perhaps failing a "that's analysis, not news" threshold for being part of public dialog? So maybe it's not "non-English cultures" neglected as much as comparative discussion in general?
One "criminally underutilized" which really struck me, was Japan having a far more sensible and powerful COVID safety one-liner than the US managed - "Three C's" (Closed spaces, Crowded places, and Close-range contact - poorly-ventilated / crowd / conversation-contact - avoid overlapping all three) vs "6-foot rule".