Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2025
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21753 |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866918036833828864 |
|---|---|
| author | Ulloa, Roberto Zucker, Eve M. Bultmann, Daniel Simon, David J. Makhortykh, Mykola |
| author_facet | Ulloa, Roberto Zucker, Eve M. Bultmann, Daniel Simon, David J. Makhortykh, Mykola |
| contents | The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) can influence how historical narratives are disseminated and perceived. This study explores the implications of LLMs' responses on the representation of mass atrocity memory, examining whether generative AI systems contribute to prosthetic memory, i.e., mediated experiences of historical events, or to what we term "prosthetic denial," the AI-mediated erasure or distortion of atrocity memories. We argue that LLMs function as interfaces that can elicit prosthetic memories and, therefore, act as experiential sites for memory transmission, but also introduce risks of denialism, particularly when their outputs align with contested or revisionist narratives. To empirically assess these risks, we conducted a comparative audit of five LLMs (Claude, GPT, Llama, Mixtral, and Gemini) across four historical case studies: the Holodomor, the Holocaust, the Cambodian Genocide, and the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda. Each model was prompted with questions addressing common denialist claims in English and an alternative language relevant to each case (Ukrainian, German, Khmer, and French). Our findings reveal that while LLMs generally produce accurate responses for widely documented events like the Holocaust, significant inconsistencies and susceptibility to denialist framings are observed for more underrepresented cases like the Cambodian Genocide. The disparities highlight the influence of training data availability and the probabilistic nature of LLM responses on memory integrity. We conclude that while LLMs extend the concept of prosthetic memory, their unmoderated use risks reinforcing historical denialism, raising ethical concerns for (digital) memory preservation, and potentially challenging the advantageous role of technology associated with the original values of prosthetic memory. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2505_21753 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | From prosthetic memory to prosthetic denial: Auditing whether large language models are prone to mass atrocity denialism Ulloa, Roberto Zucker, Eve M. Bultmann, Daniel Simon, David J. Makhortykh, Mykola Computers and Society Computation and Language The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) can influence how historical narratives are disseminated and perceived. This study explores the implications of LLMs' responses on the representation of mass atrocity memory, examining whether generative AI systems contribute to prosthetic memory, i.e., mediated experiences of historical events, or to what we term "prosthetic denial," the AI-mediated erasure or distortion of atrocity memories. We argue that LLMs function as interfaces that can elicit prosthetic memories and, therefore, act as experiential sites for memory transmission, but also introduce risks of denialism, particularly when their outputs align with contested or revisionist narratives. To empirically assess these risks, we conducted a comparative audit of five LLMs (Claude, GPT, Llama, Mixtral, and Gemini) across four historical case studies: the Holodomor, the Holocaust, the Cambodian Genocide, and the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda. Each model was prompted with questions addressing common denialist claims in English and an alternative language relevant to each case (Ukrainian, German, Khmer, and French). Our findings reveal that while LLMs generally produce accurate responses for widely documented events like the Holocaust, significant inconsistencies and susceptibility to denialist framings are observed for more underrepresented cases like the Cambodian Genocide. The disparities highlight the influence of training data availability and the probabilistic nature of LLM responses on memory integrity. We conclude that while LLMs extend the concept of prosthetic memory, their unmoderated use risks reinforcing historical denialism, raising ethical concerns for (digital) memory preservation, and potentially challenging the advantageous role of technology associated with the original values of prosthetic memory. |
| title | From prosthetic memory to prosthetic denial: Auditing whether large language models are prone to mass atrocity denialism |
| topic | Computers and Society Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.21753 |