Hey GPT, Can You be More Racist? Analysis from Crowdsourced Attempts to Elicit Biased Content from Generative AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.15467v1
• Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:44:45 GMT
• Title: Hey GPT, Can You be More Racist? Analysis from Crowdsourced Attempts to Elicit Biased Content from Generative AI
• Authors: Hangzhi Guo, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Eunchae Jang, Mukund Srinath, Wenbo Zhang, Bonam Mingole, Vipul Gupta, Kush R. Varshney, S. Shyam Sundar, Amulya Yadav,
• Abstract summary: This work presents the findings from a university-level competition, which challenged participants to design prompts for eliciting biased outputs from GenAI tools. We quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the competition submissions and identify a diverse set of biases in GenAI and strategies employed by participants to induce bias in GenAI.
• Score: 41.96102438774773
• License:
• Abstract: The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) and generative AI (GenAI) tools across diverse applications has amplified the importance of addressing societal biases inherent within these technologies. While the NLP community has extensively studied LLM bias, research investigating how non-expert users perceive and interact with biases from these systems remains limited. As these technologies become increasingly prevalent, understanding this question is crucial to inform model developers in their efforts to mitigate bias. To address this gap, this work presents the findings from a university-level competition, which challenged participants to design prompts for eliciting biased outputs from GenAI tools. We quantitatively and qualitatively analyze the competition submissions and identify a diverse set of biases in GenAI and strategies employed by participants to induce bias in GenAI. Our finding provides unique insights into how non-expert users perceive and interact with biases from GenAI tools.

Related papers

• The Influencer Next Door: How Misinformation Creators Use GenAI [1.1650821883155187]
  We find that non-experts increasingly use GenAI to remix, repackage, and (re)produce content to meet their personal needs and desires. We analyze how these understudied emergent uses of GenAI produce new or accelerated misinformation harms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T11:40:22Z)
• Generative AI in Writing Research Papers: A New Type of Algorithmic Bias and Uncertainty in Scholarly Work [0.38850145898707145]
  Large language models (LLMs) and generative AI tools present challenges in identifying and addressing biases. generative AI tools are susceptible to goal misgeneralization, hallucinations, and adversarial attacks such as red teaming prompts. We find that incorporating generative AI in the process of writing research manuscripts introduces a new type of context-induced algorithmic bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T04:05:04Z)
• 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)
• Identifying and Mitigating the Security Risks of Generative AI [179.2384121957896]
  This paper reports the findings of a workshop held at Google on the dual-use dilemma posed by GenAI. GenAI can be used just as well by attackers to generate new attacks and increase the velocity and efficacy of existing attacks. We discuss short-term and long-term goals for the community on this topic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T18:51:09Z)
• CBBQ: A Chinese Bias Benchmark Dataset Curated with Human-AI Collaboration for Large Language Models [52.25049362267279]
  We present a Chinese Bias Benchmark dataset that consists of over 100K questions jointly constructed by human experts and generative language models. The testing instances in the dataset are automatically derived from 3K+ high-quality templates manually authored with stringent quality control. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the dataset in detecting model bias, with all 10 publicly available Chinese large language models exhibiting strong bias in certain categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-28T14:14:44Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Fairness And Bias in Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Survey of Sources, Impacts, And Mitigation Strategies [11.323961700172175]
  This survey paper offers a succinct, comprehensive overview of fairness and bias in AI. We review sources of bias, such as data, algorithm, and human decision biases. We assess the societal impact of biased AI systems, focusing on the perpetuation of inequalities and the reinforcement of harmful stereotypes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T03:23:55Z)
• Should ChatGPT be Biased? Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language Models [11.323961700172175]
  This article investigates the challenges and risks associated with biases in large-scale language models like ChatGPT. We discuss the origins of biases, stemming from, among others, the nature of training data, model specifications, algorithmic constraints, product design, and policy decisions. We review the current approaches to identify, quantify, and mitigate biases in language models, emphasizing the need for a multi-disciplinary, collaborative effort to develop more equitable, transparent, and responsible AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-07T17:14:00Z)
• Human-Centric Multimodal Machine Learning: Recent Advances and Testbed on AI-based Recruitment [66.91538273487379]
  There is a certain consensus about the need to develop AI applications with a Human-Centric approach. Human-Centric Machine Learning needs to be developed based on four main requirements: (i) utility and social good; (ii) privacy and data ownership; (iii) transparency and accountability; and (iv) fairness in AI-driven decision-making processes. We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-13T16:44:44Z)
• Bias in Multimodal AI: Testbed for Fair Automatic Recruitment [73.85525896663371]
  We study how current multimodal algorithms based on heterogeneous sources of information are affected by sensitive elements and inner biases in the data. We train automatic recruitment algorithms using a set of multimodal synthetic profiles consciously scored with gender and racial biases. Our methodology and results show how to generate fairer AI-based tools in general, and in particular fairer automated recruitment systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T15:58:05Z)

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.