Yet another algorithmic bias: A Discursive Analysis of Large Language Models Reinforcing Dominant Discourses on Gender and Race

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.10304v1
• Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 03:22:02 GMT
• Title: Yet another algorithmic bias: A Discursive Analysis of Large Language Models Reinforcing Dominant Discourses on Gender and Race
• Authors: Gustavo Bonil, Simone Hashiguti, Jhessica Silva, João Gondim, Helena Maia, Nádia Silva, Helio Pedrini, Sandra Avila,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained prominence and been applied in diverse contexts.<n>As they evolve into more sophisticated versions, it is essential to assess whether they reproduce biases, such as discrimination and racialization.<n>This study proposes a qualitative, discursive framework to complement such methods.
• Score: 4.10874761487336
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: With the advance of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained prominence and been applied in diverse contexts. As they evolve into more sophisticated versions, it is essential to assess whether they reproduce biases, such as discrimination and racialization, while maintaining hegemonic discourses. Current bias detection approaches rely mostly on quantitative, automated methods, which often overlook the nuanced ways in which biases emerge in natural language. This study proposes a qualitative, discursive framework to complement such methods. Through manual analysis of LLM-generated short stories featuring Black and white women, we investigate gender and racial biases. We contend that qualitative methods such as the one proposed here are fundamental to help both developers and users identify the precise ways in which biases manifest in LLM outputs, thus enabling better conditions to mitigate them. Results show that Black women are portrayed as tied to ancestry and resistance, while white women appear in self-discovery processes. These patterns reflect how language models replicate crystalized discursive representations, reinforcing essentialization and a sense of social immobility. When prompted to correct biases, models offered superficial revisions that maintained problematic meanings, revealing limitations in fostering inclusive narratives. Our results demonstrate the ideological functioning of algorithms and have significant implications for the ethical use and development of AI. The study reinforces the need for critical, interdisciplinary approaches to AI design and deployment, addressing how LLM-generated discourses reflect and perpetuate inequalities.

Related papers

• Addressing Stereotypes in Large Language Models: A Critical Examination and Mitigation [0.0]
  Large Language models (LLMs) have gained popularity in recent years with the advancement of Natural Language Processing (NLP)<n>This study inspects and highlights the need to address biases in LLMs amid growing generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)<n>We utilize bias-specific benchmarks such StereoSet and CrowSPairs to evaluate the existence of various biases in many different generative models such as BERT, GPT 3.5, and ADA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T05:43:34Z)
• A Comprehensive Study of Implicit and Explicit Biases in Large Language Models [1.0555164678638427]
  This study highlights the need to address biases in Large Language Models amid growing generative AI.<n>We studied bias-specific benchmarks such as StereoSet and CrowSPairs to evaluate the existence of various biases in multiple generative models such as BERT and GPT 3.5.<n>Results indicated fine-tuned models struggle with gender biases but excelled at identifying and avoiding racial biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T05:27:17Z)
• Profiling Bias in LLMs: Stereotype Dimensions in Contextual Word Embeddings [1.5379084885764847]
  Large language models (LLMs) are the foundation of the current successes of artificial intelligence (AI)<n>To effectively communicate the risks and encourage mitigation efforts these models need adequate and intuitive descriptions of their discriminatory properties.<n>We suggest bias profiles with respect to stereotype dimensions based on dictionaries from social psychology research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T16:14:45Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• 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)
• White Men Lead, Black Women Help? Benchmarking and Mitigating Language Agency Social Biases in LLMs [58.27353205269664]
  Social biases can manifest in language agency in Large Language Model (LLM)-generated content.<n>We introduce the Language Agency Bias Evaluation benchmark, which comprehensively evaluates biases in LLMs.<n>Using LABE, we unveil language agency social biases in 3 recent LLMs: ChatGPT, Llama3, and Mistral.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T12:27:54Z)
• Sociodemographic Prompting is Not Yet an Effective Approach for Simulating Subjective Judgments with LLMs [13.744746481528711]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to simulate human responses across diverse contexts.<n>We evaluate nine popular LLMs on their ability to understand demographic differences in two subjective judgment tasks: politeness and offensiveness.<n>We find that in zero-shot settings, most models' predictions for both tasks align more closely with labels from White participants than those from Asian or Black participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:02:24Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Unveiling Gender Bias in Terms of Profession Across LLMs: Analyzing and Addressing Sociological Implications [0.0]
  The study examines existing research on gender bias in AI language models and identifies gaps in the current knowledge. The findings shed light on gendered word associations, language usage, and biased narratives present in the outputs of Large Language Models. The paper presents strategies for reducing gender bias in LLMs, including algorithmic approaches and data augmentation techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-18T11:38:45Z)
• AES Systems Are Both Overstable And Oversensitive: Explaining Why And Proposing Defenses [66.49753193098356]
  We investigate the reason behind the surprising adversarial brittleness of scoring models. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models, behave like bag-of-words models. We propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T03:49:38Z)
• Towards Understanding and Mitigating Social Biases in Language Models [107.82654101403264]
  Large-scale pretrained language models (LMs) can be potentially dangerous in manifesting undesirable representational biases. We propose steps towards mitigating social biases during text generation. Our empirical results and human evaluation demonstrate effectiveness in mitigating bias while retaining crucial contextual information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-24T17:52:43Z)

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.