Adaptable Moral Stances of Large Language Models on Sexist Content: Implications for Society and Gender Discourse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00175v1
• Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 19:27:04 GMT
• Title: Adaptable Moral Stances of Large Language Models on Sexist Content: Implications for Society and Gender Discourse
• Authors: Rongchen Guo, Isar Nejadgholi, Hillary Dawkins, Kathleen C. Fraser, Svetlana Kiritchenko,
• Abstract summary: We show that all eight models produce comprehensible and contextually relevant text. Based on our observations, we caution against the potential misuse of LLMs to justify sexist language.
• Score: 17.084339235658085
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This work provides an explanatory view of how LLMs can apply moral reasoning to both criticize and defend sexist language. We assessed eight large language models, all of which demonstrated the capability to provide explanations grounded in varying moral perspectives for both critiquing and endorsing views that reflect sexist assumptions. With both human and automatic evaluation, we show that all eight models produce comprehensible and contextually relevant text, which is helpful in understanding diverse views on how sexism is perceived. Also, through analysis of moral foundations cited by LLMs in their arguments, we uncover the diverse ideological perspectives in models' outputs, with some models aligning more with progressive or conservative views on gender roles and sexism. Based on our observations, we caution against the potential misuse of LLMs to justify sexist language. We also highlight that LLMs can serve as tools for understanding the roots of sexist beliefs and designing well-informed interventions. Given this dual capacity, it is crucial to monitor LLMs and design safety mechanisms for their use in applications that involve sensitive societal topics, such as sexism.

Related papers

• Tell Me What You Know About Sexism: Expert-LLM Interaction Strategies and Co-Created Definitions for Zero-Shot Sexism Detection [10.195336733879431]
  This paper investigates hybrid intelligence and collaboration between researchers of sexism and Large Language Models (LLMs) Nine sexism researchers answer questions about their knowledge of sexism and of LLMs. They then participate in two interactive experiments involving an LLM. The second experiment tasks them with creating three different definitions of sexism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T18:59:18Z)
• MuSeD: A Multimodal Spanish Dataset for Sexism Detection in Social Media Videos [12.555579923843641]
  We introduce MuSeD, a new Multimodal Spanish dataset for Sexism Detection consisting of $approx$ 11 hours of videos extracted from TikTok and BitChute. We find that visual information plays a key role in labeling sexist content for both humans and models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T13:16:46Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [73.25935570218375]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language. We uncover notable diversity in the ideological stance exhibited across different LLMs and languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Language is Scary when Over-Analyzed: Unpacking Implied Misogynistic Reasoning with Argumentation Theory-Driven Prompts [17.259767031006604]
  We propose misogyny detection as an Argumentative Reasoning task. We investigate the capacity of large language models to understand the implicit reasoning used to convey misogyny in both Italian and English.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T08:27:43Z)
• Inclusivity in Large Language Models: Personality Traits and Gender Bias in Scientific Abstracts [49.97673761305336]
  We evaluate three large language models (LLMs) for their alignment with human narrative styles and potential gender biases. Our findings indicate that, while these models generally produce text closely resembling human authored content, variations in stylistic features suggest significant gender biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T19:26:11Z)
• A multitask learning framework for leveraging subjectivity of annotators to identify misogyny [47.175010006458436]
  We propose a multitask learning approach to enhance the performance of the misogyny identification systems. We incorporated diverse perspectives from annotators in our model design, considering gender and age across six profile groups. This research advances content moderation and highlights the importance of embracing diverse perspectives to build effective online moderation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T15:06:08Z)
• Bilingual Sexism Classification: Fine-Tuned XLM-RoBERTa and GPT-3.5 Few-Shot Learning [0.8192907805418581]
  This study aims to improve sexism identification in bilingual contexts (English and Spanish) by leveraging natural language processing models. We fine-tuned the XLM-RoBERTa model and separately used GPT-3.5 with few-shot learning prompts to classify sexist content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T14:15:33Z)
• Should We Fear Large Language Models? A Structural Analysis of the Human Reasoning System for Elucidating LLM Capabilities and Risks Through the Lens of Heidegger's Philosophy [0.0]
  This study investigates the capabilities and risks of Large Language Models (LLMs) It uses the innovative parallels between the statistical patterns of word relationships within LLMs and Martin Heidegger's concepts of "ready-to-hand" and "present-at-hand" Our findings reveal that while LLMs possess the capability for Direct Explicative Reasoning and Pseudo Rational Reasoning, they fall short in authentic rational reasoning and have no creative reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T19:40:53Z)
• Evaluating Gender Bias in Large Language Models via Chain-of-Thought Prompting [87.30837365008931]
  Large language models (LLMs) equipped with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting are able to make accurate incremental predictions even on unscalable tasks. This study examines the impact of LLMs' step-by-step predictions on gender bias in unscalable tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T06:50:10Z)
• Probing Explicit and Implicit Gender Bias through LLM Conditional Text Generation [64.79319733514266]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate biased and toxic responses. We propose a conditional text generation mechanism without the need for predefined gender phrases and stereotypes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T05:31:46Z)
• Large Language Models: The Need for Nuance in Current Debates and a Pragmatic Perspective on Understanding [1.3654846342364308]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are unparalleled in their ability to generate grammatically correct, fluent text. This position paper critically assesses three points recurring in critiques of LLM capacities. We outline a pragmatic perspective on the issue of real' understanding and intentionality in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:51:04Z)
• Large Language Models are In-Context Semantic Reasoners rather than Symbolic Reasoners [75.85554779782048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have excited the natural language and machine learning community over recent years. Despite of numerous successful applications, the underlying mechanism of such in-context capabilities still remains unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that the learned textitsemantics of language tokens do the most heavy lifting during the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:33:34Z)
• "Call me sexist, but...": Revisiting Sexism Detection Using Psychological Scales and Adversarial Samples [2.029924828197095]
  We outline the different dimensions of sexism by grounding them in their implementation in psychological scales. From the scales, we derive a codebook for sexism in social media, which we use to annotate existing and novel datasets. Results indicate that current machine learning models pick up on a very narrow set of linguistic markers of sexism and do not generalize well to out-of-domain examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T13:07:46Z)

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.