aiqbench analysis
This study reveals how large language models embed distinct geographical biases when valuing human time, systematically overestimating compensation for European users while undervaluing it for those in Africa, Asia, and South America. These findings highlight critical risks of cultural bias in agentic AI systems that could lead to unfair treatment based on a user's location rather than their actual economic context.
A Global View of How LLMs Value Human Time
arXiv:2610.18515v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as personal assistants; however, little is known about how they capture national-level preferences on a global scale. Given that "time" is a universal and representative concept, we examine LLMs' time preferences by varying only users' country and measuring the compensation LLMs deem appropriate for a 60-minute appointment delay. We then compare LLMs' responses with GDP per capita on Purchasing Power Parity (GDP_PPP), Mean Income, and a literature-based index (Patience Score). Our results across 193 countries and 5 LLMs demonstrate that people's time across the world is evaluated in noticeably different ways among LLMs, as well as varying levels of robustness under prompt variations. LLMs consistently recommend the highest compensation for Europe, but mostly the lowest for Africa. Based on GDP_PPP, LLMs underestimate the value of time for users living in Asia and South America. These findings indicate that geographical patterns are embedded in LLMs and may translate in different treatment in agentic settings.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as personal assistants; however, little is known about how they capture national-level preferences on a global scale. Given that "time" is a universal and representative concept, we examine LLMs' time preferences by varying only users' country and measuring the compensation LLMs deem appropriate for a 60-minute appointment delay. We then compare LLMs' responses with GDP per capita on Purchasing Power Parity (GDP_PPP), Mean Income, and a literature-based index (Patience Score). Our results across 193 countries and 5 LLMs demonstrate that people's time across the world is evaluated in noticeably different ways among LLMs, as well as varying levels of robustness under prompt variations. LLMs consistently recommend the highest compensation for Europe, but mostly the lowest for Africa. Based on GDP_PPP, LLMs underestimate the value of time for users living in Asia and South America. These findings indicate that geographical patterns are embedded in LLMs and may translate in different treatment in agentic settings.
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.18515 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2610.18515v1 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.18515 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 257 words
Related coverage
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

Vertical Advantage: Transforming Industries with Lakebase and Agentic AI
Databricks · Aug 27, 2026
The Three Filters: Why Almost Every Plan to Survive ASI Fails Miserably
LessWrong · Jun 10, 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026