Exploring LGBTQ+ Bias in Generative AI Answers across Different Country and Religious Contexts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03473v1
• Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 19:38:19 GMT
• Title: Exploring LGBTQ+ Bias in Generative AI Answers across Different Country and Religious Contexts
• Abstract summary: ChatGPT 3.5's replies exhibited cultural relativism, in contrast to Bard's, which stressed human rights and provided more support for LGBTQ+ issues. The study contributes to understanding the social and ethical implications of AI responses.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Previous discussions have highlighted the need for generative AI tools to become more culturally sensitive, yet often neglect the complexities of handling content about minorities, who are perceived differently across cultures and religions. Our study examined how two generative AI systems respond to homophobic statements with varying cultural and religious context information. Findings showed ChatGPT 3.5's replies exhibited cultural relativism, in contrast to Bard's, which stressed human rights and provided more support for LGBTQ+ issues. Both demonstrated significant change in responses based on contextual information provided in the prompts, suggesting that AI systems may adjust in their responses the degree and forms of support for LGBTQ+ people according to information they receive about the user's background. The study contributes to understanding the social and ethical implications of AI responses and argues that any work to make generative AI outputs more culturally diverse requires a grounding in fundamental human rights.

Related papers

• Surfacing and Applying Meaning: Supporting Hermeneutical Autonomy for LGBTQ+ People in Taiwan [14.92891685206648]
  After Taiwan's legalization of same-sex marriage in 2019, LGBTQ+ communities continue to face hostility on social media.<n>Using the lens of hermeneutical injustice and autonomy, we examine how technological conditions affect LGBTQ+ individuals' identity exploration, narrative seeking, and community resilience.<n>We develop an AI system that helps participants reframe hostile narratives, validate lived experiences, and scaffold identity exploration, while reducing the hermeneutical labor of navigating social media hostility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T13:57:06Z)
• Cultural Bias in Large Language Models: Evaluating AI Agents through Moral Questionnaires [0.0]
  Large Language Models fail to represent diverse cultural moral frameworks despite their linguistic capabilities.<n>Surprisingly, increased model size doesn't consistently improve cultural representation fidelity.<n>Our results call for more grounded alignment objectives and evaluation metrics to ensure AI systems represent diverse human values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T08:59:26Z)
• What do people expect from Artificial Intelligence? Public opinion on alignment in AI moderation from Germany and the United States [0.0]
  We present evidence from two surveys of public preferences for key functional features of AI-enabled systems in Germany and the United States. We examine support for four types of alignment in AI moderation: accuracy and reliability, safety, bias mitigation, and the promotion of aspirational imaginaries. In both countries, accuracy and safety enjoy the strongest support, while more normatively charged goals -- like fairness and aspirational imaginaries -- receive more cautious backing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T20:27:03Z)
• AI as a deliberative partner fosters intercultural empathy for Americans but fails for Latin American participants [4.641694322213005]
  We examined how different types of AI interaction, i.e. deliberative versus non-deliberative and culturally aligned versus non-aligned, affect intercultural empathy. Results show that deliberative conversations increased intercultural empathy among American participants but not Latin American participants. Despite explicit prompting and instruction to represent cultural perspectives in participants' native languages, AI systems still exhibit significant disparities in cultural representation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-04T17:15:01Z)
• Mind the Gesture: Evaluating AI Sensitivity to Culturally Offensive Non-Verbal Gestures [67.89565097372751]
  Gestures are an integral part of non-verbal communication, with meanings that vary across cultures. As AI systems become more integrated into global applications, ensuring they do not inadvertently perpetuate cultural offenses is critical. We introduce Multi-Cultural Set of Inappropriate Gestures and Nonverbal Signs (MC-SIGNS), a dataset of 288 gesture-country pairs annotated for offensiveness, cultural significance, and contextual factors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T23:10:08Z)
• AI in Support of Diversity and Inclusion [5.415339913320849]
  We look at the challenges and progress in making large language models (LLMs) more transparent, inclusive, and aware of social biases. We highlight AI's role in identifying biased content in media, which is important for improving representation. We stress AI systems need diverse and inclusive training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-16T13:36:24Z)
• Human Bias in the Face of AI: The Role of Human Judgement in AI Generated Text Evaluation [48.70176791365903]
  This study explores how bias shapes the perception of AI versus human generated content. We investigated how human raters respond to labeled and unlabeled content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T04:31:45Z)
• The Honorific Effect: Exploring the Impact of Japanese Linguistic Formalities on AI-Generated Physics Explanations [0.0]
  This study investigates the influence of Japanese honorifics on the responses of large language models (LLMs) when explaining the law of conservation of momentum. We analyzed the outputs of six state-of-the-art AI models, including variations of ChatGPT, Coral, and Gemini, using 14 different honorific forms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-12T11:31:00Z)
• Language Model Alignment in Multilingual Trolley Problems [138.5684081822807]
  Building on the Moral Machine experiment, we develop a cross-lingual corpus of moral dilemma vignettes in over 100 languages called MultiTP. Our analysis explores the alignment of 19 different LLMs with human judgments, capturing preferences across six moral dimensions. We discover significant variance in alignment across languages, challenging the assumption of uniform moral reasoning in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T14:02:53Z)
• CIVICS: Building a Dataset for Examining Culturally-Informed Values in Large Language Models [59.22460740026037]
  "CIVICS: Culturally-Informed & Values-Inclusive Corpus for Societal impacts" dataset is designed to evaluate the social and cultural variation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We create a hand-crafted, multilingual dataset of value-laden prompts which address specific socially sensitive topics, including LGBTQI rights, social welfare, immigration, disability rights, and surrogacy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T20:19:10Z)
• The PRISM Alignment Project: What Participatory, Representative and Individualised Human Feedback Reveals About the Subjective and Multicultural Alignment of Large Language Models [67.38144169029617]
  We introduce PRISM, a new dataset which maps the sociodemographics and stated preferences of 1,500 diverse participants from 75 countries. PRISM contributes (i) wide geographic and demographic participation in human feedback data; (ii) two census-representative samples for understanding collective welfare (UK and US); and (iii) individualised feedback where every rating is linked to a detailed participant profile.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T17:51:36Z)
• How Culture Shapes What People Want From AI [0.0]
  There is an urgent need to incorporate the perspectives of culturally diverse groups into AI developments. We present a novel conceptual framework for research that aims to expand, reimagine, and reground mainstream visions of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T07:08:19Z)
• Disentangling Perceptions of Offensiveness: Cultural and Moral Correlates [4.857640117519813]
  We argue that cultural and psychological factors play a vital role in the cognitive processing of offensiveness. We demonstrate substantial cross-cultural differences in perceptions of offensiveness. Individual moral values play a crucial role in shaping these variations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T22:12:20Z)
• Not All Countries Celebrate Thanksgiving: On the Cultural Dominance in Large Language Models [89.94270049334479]
  This paper identifies a cultural dominance issue within large language models (LLMs) LLMs often provide inappropriate English-culture-related answers that are not relevant to the expected culture when users ask in non-English languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T05:38:23Z)
• An Analytics of Culture: Modeling Subjectivity, Scalability, Contextuality, and Temporality [13.638494941763637]
  There is a bidirectional relationship between culture and AI; AI models are increasingly used to analyse culture, thereby shaping our understanding of culture. On the other hand, the models are trained on collections of cultural artifacts thereby implicitly, and not always correctly, encoding expressions of culture. This creates a tension that both limits the use of AI for analysing culture and leads to problems in AI with respect to cultural complex issues such as bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-14T15:42:27Z)
• A Framework for the Computational Linguistic Analysis of Dehumanization [52.735780962665814]
  We analyze discussions of LGBTQ people in the New York Times from 1986 to 2015. We find increasingly humanizing descriptions of LGBTQ people over time. The ability to analyze dehumanizing language at a large scale has implications for automatically detecting and understanding media bias as well as abusive language online.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-06T03:02:12Z)

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.