mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Recourse for reclamation: Chatting with generative language models

arXiv 2403.14467 ↗First posted 21 Mar 2024cs.HC cs.CL cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Researchers and developers increasingly rely on toxicity scoring to moderate generative language model outputs, in settings such as customer service, information retrieval, and content generation. However, toxicity scoring may render pertinent information inaccessible, rigidify or "value-lock" cultural norms, and prevent language reclamation processes, particularly for marginalized people. In this work, we extend the concept of algorithmic recourse to generative language models: we provide users a novel mechanism to achieve their desired prediction by dynamically setting thresholds for toxicity filtering. Users thereby exercise increased agency relative to interactions with the baseline system. A pilot study (n = 30) supports the potential of our proposed recourse mechanism, indicating improvements in usability compared to fixed-threshold toxicity-filtering of model outputs. Future work should explore the intersection of toxicity scoring, model controllability, user agency, and language reclamation processes -- particularly with regard to the bias that many communities encounter when interacting with generative language models.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 90 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Mar 2024.

Builds on

27 of 90 references.

References · 27

  1. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
  2. 2023Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 743
  3. 2020Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignmentcited by 443
  4. 2020GeDi: Generative Discriminator Guided Sequence Generationcited by 377
  5. 2021Persistent Anti-Muslim Bias in Large Language Modelscited by 376
  6. 2018Actionable Recourse in Linear Classificationcited by 327
  7. 2015Strategic Classificationcited by 256
  8. 2020Algorithmic Recourse: from Counterfactual Explanations to Interventionscited by 250
  9. 2019Racial Bias in Hate Speech and Abusive Language Detection Datasetscited by 208
  10. 2021Challenges in Detoxifying Language Modelscited by 169
  11. 2022Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AIcited by 137
  12. 2017Strategic Classification from Revealed Preferencescited by 126
15 more
  1. 2021Detoxifying Language Models Risks Marginalizing Minority Voicescited by 106
  2. 2018The Social Cost of Strategic Classificationcited by 105
  3. 2021Towards Robust and Reliable Algorithmic Recoursecited by 101
  4. 2020Contextualizing Hate Speech Classifiers with Post-hoc Explanationcited by 84
  5. 2018The Disparate Effects of Strategic Manipulationcited by 75
  6. 2018Contrastive Explanation: A Structural-Model Approachcited by 64
  7. 2023AI's Regimes of Representation: A Community-centered Study of Text-to-Image Models in South Asiacited by 54
  8. 2021Fairness for Unobserved Characteristics: Insights from Technological Impacts on Queer Communitiescited by 40
  9. 2021A Framework of Severity for Harmful Content Onlinecited by 22
  10. 2023Indian-BhED: A Dataset for Measuring India-Centric Biases in Large Language Modelscited by 17
  11. 2022Warmth and competence in human-agent cooperationcited by 11
  12. 2023Human participants in AI research: Ethics and transparency in practicecited by 6
  13. 2023Algorithmic Censoring in Dynamic Learning Systemscited by 5
  14. 2022A Justice-Based Framework for the Analysis of Algorithmic Fairness-Utility Trade-Offscited by 3
  15. 2022Actionable Recourse via GANs for Mobile Healthcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.