Intersectionality in Conversational AI Safety: How Bayesian Multilevel Models Help Understand Diverse Perceptions of Safety
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Conversational AI systems exhibit a level of human-like behavior that promises to have profound impacts on many aspects of daily life -- how people access information, create content, and seek social support. Yet these models have also shown a propensity for biases, offensive language, and conveying false information. Consequently, understanding and moderating safety risks in these models is a critical technical and social challenge. Perception of safety is intrinsically subjective, where many factors -- often intersecting -- could determine why one person may consider a conversation with a chatbot safe and another person could consider the same conversation unsafe. In this work, we focus on demographic factors that could influence such diverse perceptions. To this end, we contribute an analysis using Bayesian multilevel modeling to explore the connection between rater demographics and how raters report safety of conversational AI systems. We study a sample of 252 human raters stratified by gender, age group, race/ethnicity group, and locale. This rater pool provided safety labels for 1,340 human-chatbot conversations. Our results show that intersectional effects involving demographic characteristics such as race/ethnicity, gender, and age, as well as content characteristics, such as degree of harm, all play significant roles in determining the safety of conversational AI systems. For example, race/ethnicity and gender show strong intersectional effects, particularly among South Asian and East Asian women. We also find that conversational degree of harm impacts raters of all race/ethnicity groups, but that Indigenous and South Asian raters are particularly sensitive to this harm. Finally, we observe the effect of education is uniquely intersectional for Indigenous raters, highlighting the utility of multilevel frameworks for uncovering underrepresented social perspectives.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 20 Jun 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 3; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
8 papers.
- 2023Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systemscited by 154
- 2023GRASP: A Disagreement Analysis Framework to Assess Group Associations in Perspectivescited by 16
- 2024STAR: SocioTechnical Approach to Red Teaming Language Modelscited by 13
- 2024D3CODE: Disentangling Disagreements in Data across Cultures on Offensiveness Detection and Evaluationcited by 9
- 2024Rater Cohesion and Quality from a Vicarious Perspectivecited by 8
- 2025LPI-RIT at LeWiDi-2025: Improving Distributional Predictions via Metadata and Loss Reweighting with DisCocited by 2
- 2025Human Preferences for Constructive Interactions in Language Model Alignmentcited by 1
- 2026Understanding Annotator Safety Policy with Interpretabilitycited by 0
- 2026Understanding Annotator Safety Policy with Interpretability6 May 2026
- 2025LPI-RIT at LeWiDi-2025: Improving Distributional Predictions via Metadata and Loss Reweighting with DisCo11 Aug 2025
- 2025Human Preferences for Constructive Interactions in Language Model Alignment5 Mar 2025
- 2024Rater Cohesion and Quality from a Vicarious Perspective15 Aug 2024
- 2024STAR: SocioTechnical Approach to Red Teaming Language Models17 Jun 2024
- 2024D3CODE: Disentangling Disagreements in Data across Cultures on Offensiveness Detection and Evaluation16 Apr 2024
- 2023GRASP: A Disagreement Analysis Framework to Assess Group Associations in Perspectives9 Nov 2023
- 2023Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systems18 Oct 2023