OOF-AII-628400
Korean Chatbot Luda Reportedly Made Offensive Remarks Towards Minority Groups in South Korea
A Korean interactive chatbot was allegedly shown in screenshots to have used derogatory and bigoted language when asked about lesbians, Black people, and people with disabilities.
- Event date
- 2020-12-23
- Country
- South Korea
- Severity
- Low
- Evidence state
- Single-source
Assessment status
Generated from available public incident evidence using OOF® governance methodology. It is not an official investigation, legal determination, regulatory finding, certification, or OOF® Approved Assessment.
View source record from AI Incident Database (Responsible AI Collaborative)
Assessment confidence dimensions
- Source corroboration
- Single-source
- Extraction completeness
- High
- Methodological assignment confidence
- Moderate
Measures source-group corroboration only; it does not establish factual truth.
Measures populated source fields after deterministic normalization; it does not measure correctness.
Measures automated assignment support; substantive correctness requires authorized human review.
Known facts from the incident record
- The incident record identifies the event date as 2020-12-23.
- The incident record identifies the location as South Korea.
Reported claims
- A Korean interactive chatbot was allegedly shown in screenshots to have used derogatory and bigoted language when asked about lesbians, Black people, and people with disabilities.
Material unknowns
- Independent corroboration is not established in the available incident record.
Primary governance problem
The incident appears to expose a governance problem involving learning, cognition, decision, reasoning. Available reporting supports preliminary methodological interpretation, not a finding of fault or non-compliance.
Architecture intelligence
CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture
Primary architecture
The reported learning, cognition, decision concern falls within the governed questions represented by CLIA® — Cognitive Governance Intelligence Architecture.
Governance focus: How should learning, cognition, decision be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
Deeper methodology is withheld because the available evidence does not justify a Parent Standard or Core Module.
PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture
Contributing architecture
The reported communication, information, distributional concern falls within the governed questions represented by PGA™ — Prediction Governance Architecture.
Governance focus: When changing information or conditions materially affect a prediction, when must it be preserved, reviewed, revised, superseded, or withdrawn?
Canonical methodology (ParentStandard):
Preliminary governance questions
- How should learning, cognition, decision be governed in the conditions described by the available incident evidence?
- When changing information or conditions materially affect a prediction, when must it be preserved, reviewed, revised, superseded, or withdrawn?
- What operational authority and controls applied to Facebook Messenger at the relevant time?
- What evidence would establish how Chatbots, Luda produced or enabled the reported outcome?
- What additional independent evidence is required to resolve the material evidence gaps?
Evidence gaps and limitations
- Only one independent source group is represented; corroboration is not established.