Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces the concept of "epistemic subordination," highlighting how generative AI encodes dominant cultural frameworks as the default knowledge infrastructure, thereby marginalizing minority epistemologies. It argues that the training process compresses diverse human expressions into a probabilistic model that reflects the biases of the majority, resulting in a systemic issue rather than isolated biases. The authors contend that current legal frameworks are inadequate in addressing this issue, as they focus on downstream effects rather than the model training process where the harm originates.
Generative AI doesn't just reflect biases; it embeds a dominant cultural epistemology that marginalizes minority voices at the very foundation of knowledge creation.
Generative AI does not merely produce biased outputs. It encodes the majority's way of knowing as the default infrastructure of knowledge itself. We call this epistemic subordination. The training process compresses the full breadth of human expression into a single probabilistic model whose statistical baseline reflects the languages, assumptions, and cultural frameworks of the dominant culture. Minority epistemologies are not excluded but absorbed: present in the training data, yet structurally subordinated in the output. The result is not a collection of discrete biases that can be audited and corrected. It is an epistemic condition embedded in the architecture from which all outputs emerge. This unified harm cuts across three legal domains -- anti-discrimination law, cultural and linguistic rights, and democratic viewpoint pluralism -- and each fails to address it for the same structural reason: existing law regulates downstream, at the level of decisions and applications. The remedy must match the site of harm. If epistemic subordination is produced at the level of model training, then law must learn to govern at that level.
