Potential Societal Biases of ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Scoping Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14381v3
• Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 06:25:36 GMT
• Title: Potential Societal Biases of ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Scoping Review
• Authors: Ming Li, Ariunaa Enkhtur, Beverley Anne Yamamoto, Fei Cheng, Lilan Chen,
• Abstract summary: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) models, such as ChatGPT, may inherit or amplify societal biases due to their training on extensive datasets. With the increasing usage of GAI by students, faculty, and staff in higher education institutions (HEIs), it is urgent to examine the ethical issues and potential biases associated with these technologies. This scoping review aims to elucidate how biases related to GAI in HEIs have been researched and discussed in recent academic publications.
• Score: 10.78182694538159
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Purpose:Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) models, such as ChatGPT, may inherit or amplify societal biases due to their training on extensive datasets. With the increasing usage of GAI by students, faculty, and staff in higher education institutions (HEIs), it is urgent to examine the ethical issues and potential biases associated with these technologies. Design/Approach/Methods:This scoping review aims to elucidate how biases related to GAI in HEIs have been researched and discussed in recent academic publications. We categorized the potential societal biases that GAI might cause in the field of higher education. Our review includes articles written in English, Chinese, and Japanese across four main databases, focusing on GAI usage in higher education and bias. Findings:Our findings reveal that while there is meaningful scholarly discussion around bias and discrimination concerning LLMs in the AI field, most articles addressing higher education approach the issue superficially. Few articles identify specific types of bias under different circumstances, and there is a notable lack of empirical research. Most papers in our review focus primarily on educational and research fields related to medicine and engineering, with some addressing English education. However, there is almost no discussion regarding the humanities and social sciences. Additionally, a significant portion of the current discourse is in English and primarily addresses English-speaking contexts. Originality/Value:To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to summarize the potential societal biases in higher education. This review highlights the need for more in-depth studies and empirical work to understand the specific biases that GAI might introduce or amplify in educational settings, guiding the development of more ethical AI applications in higher education.

Related papers

• Fairness and Bias in Multimodal AI: A Survey [0.20971479389679337]
  The importance of addressing fairness and bias in artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot be over-emphasized. We fill a gap with regards to the relatively minimal study of fairness and bias in Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) compared to Large Language Models (LLMs) We provide 50 examples of datasets and models related to both types of AI along with the challenges of bias affecting them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T11:26:17Z)
• Survey of Bias In Text-to-Image Generation: Definition, Evaluation, and Mitigation [47.770531682802314]
  Even simple prompts could cause T2I models to exhibit conspicuous social bias in generated images. We present the first extensive survey on bias in T2I generative models. We discuss how these works define, evaluate, and mitigate different aspects of bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T10:19:05Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [58.6354685593418]
  This paper proposes several article-level, field-normalized, and large language model-empowered bibliometric indicators to evaluate reviews. The newly emerging AI-generated literature reviews are also appraised. This work offers insights into the current challenges of literature reviews and envisions future directions for their development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• Ethical Implications of ChatGPT in Higher Education: A Scoping Review [11.567239416304714]
  This scoping review explores the ethical challenges of using ChatGPT in higher education. By reviewing recent academic articles in English, Chinese, and Japanese, we aimed to provide a deep dive review and identify gaps in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-24T09:52:49Z)
• Data-Driven Analysis of Gender Fairness in the Software Engineering Academic Landscape [4.580653005421453]
  We study the problem of gender bias in academic promotions in the informatics (INF) and software engineering (SE) Italian communities. We first conduct a literature review to assess how the problem of gender bias in academia has been addressed so far. Next, we describe a process to collect and preprocess the INF and SE data needed to analyse gender bias in Italian academic promotions. From the conducted analysis, we observe how the SE community presents a higher bias in promotions to Associate Professors and a smaller bias in promotions to Full Professors compared to the overall INF community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T12:04:56Z)
• Challenges in Annotating Datasets to Quantify Bias in Under-represented Society [7.9342597513806865]
  Benchmark bias datasets have been developed for binary gender classification and ethical/racial considerations. Motivated by the lack of annotated datasets for quantifying bias in under-represented societies, we created benchmark datasets for the New Zealand (NZ) population. This research outlines the manual annotation process, provides an overview of the challenges we encountered and lessons learnt, and presents recommendations for future research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-11T22:24:39Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Fairness in Recommender Systems: Research Landscape and Future Directions [119.67643184567623]
  We review the concepts and notions of fairness that were put forward in the area in the recent past. We present an overview of how research in this field is currently operationalized. Overall, our analysis of recent works points to certain research gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T08:34:25Z)
• The SAME score: Improved cosine based bias score for word embeddings [49.75878234192369]
  We introduce SAME, a novel bias score for semantic bias in embeddings. We show that SAME is capable of measuring semantic bias and identify potential causes for social bias in downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T09:28:13Z)
• Use of Formal Ethical Reviews in NLP Literature: Historical Trends and Current Practices [6.195761193461355]
  Ethical aspects of research in language technologies have received much attention recently. It is a standard practice to get a study involving human subjects reviewed and approved by a professional ethics committee/board of the institution. With the rising concerns and discourse around the ethics of NLP, do we also observe a rise in formal ethical reviews of NLP studies?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T12:12:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.