-
The Psychosocial Impacts of Generative AI Harms
Authors:
Faye-Marie Vassel,
Evan Shieh,
Cassidy R. Sugimoto,
Thema Monroe-White
Abstract:
The rapid emergence of generative Language Models (LMs) has led to growing concern about the impacts that their unexamined adoption may have on the social well-being of diverse user groups. Meanwhile, LMs are increasingly being adopted in K-20 schools and one-on-one student settings with minimal investigation of potential harms associated with their deployment. Motivated in part by real-world/ever…
▽ More
The rapid emergence of generative Language Models (LMs) has led to growing concern about the impacts that their unexamined adoption may have on the social well-being of diverse user groups. Meanwhile, LMs are increasingly being adopted in K-20 schools and one-on-one student settings with minimal investigation of potential harms associated with their deployment. Motivated in part by real-world/everyday use cases (e.g., an AI writing assistant) this paper explores the potential psychosocial harms of stories generated by five leading LMs in response to open-ended prompting. We extend findings of stereoty** harms analyzing a total of 150K 100-word stories related to student classroom interactions. Examining patterns in LM-generated character demographics and representational harms (i.e., erasure, subordination, and stereoty**) we highlight particularly egregious vignettes, illustrating the ways LM-generated outputs may influence the experiences of users with marginalized and minoritized identities, and emphasizing the need for a critical understanding of the psychosocial impacts of generative AI tools when deployed and utilized in diverse social contexts.
△ Less
Submitted 2 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
-
Laissez-Faire Harms: Algorithmic Biases in Generative Language Models
Authors:
Evan Shieh,
Faye-Marie Vassel,
Cassidy Sugimoto,
Thema Monroe-White
Abstract:
The rapid deployment of generative language models (LMs) has raised concerns about social biases affecting the well-being of diverse consumers. The extant literature on generative LMs has primarily examined bias via explicit identity prompting. However, prior research on bias in earlier language-based technology platforms, including search engines, has shown that discrimination can occur even when…
▽ More
The rapid deployment of generative language models (LMs) has raised concerns about social biases affecting the well-being of diverse consumers. The extant literature on generative LMs has primarily examined bias via explicit identity prompting. However, prior research on bias in earlier language-based technology platforms, including search engines, has shown that discrimination can occur even when identity terms are not specified explicitly. Studies of bias in LM responses to open-ended prompts (where identity classifications are left unspecified) are lacking and have not yet been grounded in end-consumer harms. Here, we advance studies of generative LM bias by considering a broader set of natural use cases via open-ended prompting. In this "laissez-faire" setting, we find that synthetically generated texts from five of the most pervasive LMs (ChatGPT3.5, ChatGPT4, Claude2.0, Llama2, and PaLM2) perpetuate harms of omission, subordination, and stereoty** for minoritized individuals with intersectional race, gender, and/or sexual orientation identities (AI/AN, Asian, Black, Latine, MENA, NH/PI, Female, Non-binary, Queer). We find widespread evidence of bias to an extent that such individuals are hundreds to thousands of times more likely to encounter LM-generated outputs that portray their identities in a subordinated manner compared to representative or empowering portrayals. We also document a prevalence of stereotypes (e.g. perpetual foreigner) in LM-generated outputs that are known to trigger psychological harms that disproportionately affect minoritized individuals. These include stereotype threat, which leads to impaired cognitive performance and increased negative self-perception. Our findings highlight the urgent need to protect consumers from discriminatory harms caused by language models and invest in critical AI education programs tailored towards empowering diverse consumers.
△ Less
Submitted 16 April, 2024; v1 submitted 11 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
The Howard-Harvard effect: Institutional reproduction of intersectional inequalities
Authors:
Diego Kozlowski,
Thema Monroe-White,
Vincent Larivière,
Cassidy R. Sugimoto
Abstract:
The US higher education system concentrates the production of science and scientists within a few institutions. This has implications for minoritized scholars and the topics with which they are disproportionately associated. This paper examines topical alignment between institutions and authors of varying intersectional identities, and the relationship with prestige and scientific impact. We obser…
▽ More
The US higher education system concentrates the production of science and scientists within a few institutions. This has implications for minoritized scholars and the topics with which they are disproportionately associated. This paper examines topical alignment between institutions and authors of varying intersectional identities, and the relationship with prestige and scientific impact. We observe a Howard-Harvard effect, in which the topical profile of minoritized scholars are amplified in mission-driven institutions and decreased in prestigious institutions. Results demonstrate a consistent pattern of inequality in topics and research impact. Specifically, we observe statistically significant differences between minoritized scholars and White men in citations and journal impact. The aggregate research profile of prestigious US universities is highly correlated with the research profile of White men, and highly negatively correlated with the research profile of minoritized women. Furthermore, authors affiliated with more prestigious institutions are associated with increasing inequalities in both citations and journal impact. Academic institutions and funders are called to create policies to mitigate the systemic barriers that prevent the United States from achieving a fully robust scientific ecosystem.
△ Less
Submitted 6 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Avoiding bias when inferring race using name-based approaches
Authors:
Diego Kozlowski,
Dakota S. Murray,
Alexis Bell,
Will Hulsey,
Vincent Larivière,
Thema Monroe-White,
Cassidy R. Sugimoto
Abstract:
Racial disparity in academia is a widely acknowledged problem. The quantitative understanding of racial based systemic inequalities is an important step towards a more equitable research system. However, because of the lack of robust information on authors' race, few large scale analyses have been performed on this topic. Algorithmic approaches offer one solution, using known information about aut…
▽ More
Racial disparity in academia is a widely acknowledged problem. The quantitative understanding of racial based systemic inequalities is an important step towards a more equitable research system. However, because of the lack of robust information on authors' race, few large scale analyses have been performed on this topic. Algorithmic approaches offer one solution, using known information about authors, such as their names, to infer their perceived race. As with any other algorithm, the process of racial inference can generate biases if it is not carefully considered. The goal of this article is to assess the extent to which algorithmic bias is introduced using different approaches for name based racial inference. We use information from the U.S. Census and mortgage applications to infer the race of U.S. affiliated authors in the Web of Science. We estimate the effects of using given and family names, thresholds or continuous distributions, and imputation. Our results demonstrate that the validity of name based inference varies by race/ethnicity and that threshold approaches underestimate Black authors and overestimate White authors. We conclude with recommendations to avoid potential biases. This article lays the foundation for more systematic and less biased investigations into racial disparities in science.
△ Less
Submitted 12 October, 2021; v1 submitted 14 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
