Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

AI language tools risk scientific diversity and innovation

Nature Human Behaviour volume 7, pages 1804–1805 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Diversity is important for science, as innovations are often caused by merging distinct knowledge or technology to solve problems2. For example, research in Europe has shown that immigrant workers bring diverse ideas, perspectives and cultural backgrounds that increase the productivity and scientific impact of host countries3. Experimental and theoretical studies have also shown that information inefficiency and cultural diversity are necessary for innovation4. Similarly, we know that language diversity has a crucial role in preserving unique ideas and perspectives that emerge within different cultures5,6.

On the one hand, using LLMs to eliminate language barriers would facilitate the diffusion of knowledge and ideas among scientists, which might accelerate scientific advances in the short term. On the other hand, this could prevent ground-breaking innovations because the ideas and interests of scientists would become more homogenized and an important source of uniqueness would be lost.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Berdejo-Espinola, V. & Amano, T. Science 379, 991 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Derex, M., Perreault, C. & Boyd, R. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 373, 20170062 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bosetti, V., Cattaneo, C. & Verdolini, E. Migration, Cultural Diversity and Innovation: A European Perspective (FEEM Working Paper 69) (2012).

  4. Centola, D. Trends Cogn. Sci. 26, 923–941 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Durham, W. H. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 21, 331–353 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Youngblood, M., Baraghith, K. & Savage, P. E. Evol. Hum. Behav. 42, 573–582 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Moser, C. & Smaldino, P. E. Preprint at SocArXiv, https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/n3hc6 (2023)

  8. Hong, L. & Page, S. E. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 16385–16389 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We used ChatGPT for English editing and to provide feedback on the earlier version of this manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Ryosuke Nakadai, Yo Nakawake & Shota Shibasaki.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biodiversity Division, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan

    Ryosuke Nakadai

  2. Department of Social Psychology, Yasuda Women’s University Japan, Hiroshima, Japan

    Yo Nakawake

  3. School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Yo Nakawake

  4. Department of Biology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA

    Shota Shibasaki

Authors
  1. Ryosuke Nakadai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yo Nakawake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shota Shibasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ryosuke Nakadai, Yo Nakawake or Shota Shibasaki.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Human Behaviour thanks Violeta Berdejo-Espinola and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nakadai, R., Nakawake, Y. & Shibasaki, S. AI language tools risk scientific diversity and innovation. Nat Hum Behav 7, 1804–1805 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01652-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01652-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing