aiqbench analysis
This study reveals that large language models systematically perpetuate masculine generic bias even when responding to unconstrained prompts in French, with bias rates rising significantly when the input itself contains gendered terms. The findings underscore a critical limitation in current model architectures: they rarely spontaneously adopt gender-fair language strategies without explicit intervention or fine-tuning. For researchers and developers, this highlights the urgent need for robust evaluation metrics and training protocols specifically designed to mitigate deep-seated linguistic biases inherent in both data and model weights.
Man Made Language Models? Evaluating LLMs' Perpetuation of Masculine Generics Bias
arXiv:2502.10577v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Instruct-based large language models (LLMs) have been shown to propagate and even amplify gender bias when prompted with contextually constrained instructions (e.g., writing a text from a description or selecting a gendered pronoun). However, little attention has been paid to biases in responses to contextually unconstrained (generic) instructions conveyed by gendered language, particularly masculine generics (MG). MG, found in many gender-marked languages, denote the use of the masculine gender as a supposedly neutral reference to mixed-gender groups or individuals whose gender is unknown or non-binary. Yet, psycholinguistic studies demonstrate that MG are not neutral and systematically induce gender bias. This study investigates how both local and proprietary LLMs are MG-biased when responding to generic prompts in French, examining LLMs' MG bias rates and use of gender-fair language (GFL). We create a 16k+ human noun database from existing lexical resources and evaluate six LLMs on four instruction-response datasets under two conditions: prompts with and without MG. Overall, we find that $\approx$27.57% of LLMs' responses to MG-filtered generic instructions are MG-biased ($\approx$78.55% with MG-containing prompts). Moreover, we find that LLMs rarely use GFL spontaneously. These findings highlight the persistence of MG bias in LLM outputs and models' limited tendency towards GFL strategies.
Title:Man Made Language Models? Evaluating LLMs' Perpetuation of Masculine Generics Bias
Abstract:Instruct-based large language models (LLMs) have been shown to propagate and even amplify gender bias when prompted with contextually constrained instructions (e.g., writing a text from a description or selecting a gendered pronoun). However, little attention has been paid to biases in responses to contextually unconstrained (generic) instructions conveyed by gendered language, particularly masculine generics (MG). MG, found in many gender-marked languages, denote the use of the masculine gender as a supposedly neutral reference to mixed-gender groups or individuals whose gender is unknown or non-binary. Yet, psycholinguistic studies demonstrate that MG are not neutral and systematically induce gender bias. This study investigates how both local and proprietary LLMs are MG-biased when responding to generic prompts in French, examining LLMs' MG bias rates and use of gender-fair language (GFL). We create a 16k+ human noun database from existing lexical resources and evaluate six LLMs on four instruction-response datasets under two conditions: prompts with and without MG. Overall, we find that $\approx$27.57% of LLMs' responses to MG-filtered generic instructions are MG-biased ($\approx$78.55% with MG-containing prompts). Moreover, we find that LLMs rarely use GFL spontaneously. These findings highlight the persistence of MG bias in LLM outputs and models' limited tendency towards GFL strategies.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2502.10577 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2502.10577v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.10577 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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 · 307 words
Related coverage

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026

Open-Source AI & Open Models Reading List
Interconnects · Sep 11, 2026

The basic argument for making AI better at moral philosophy
LessWrong · Oct 14, 2026