mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Laissez-Faire Harms: Algorithmic Biases in Generative Language Models

arXiv 2404.07475 ↗First posted 11 Apr 2024cs.CL cs.AI cs.CYcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid deployment of generative language models (LMs) has raised concerns about social biases affecting the well-being of diverse consumers. The extant literature on generative LMs has primarily examined bias via explicit identity prompting. However, prior research on bias in earlier language-based technology platforms, including search engines, has shown that discrimination can occur even when identity terms are not specified explicitly. Studies of bias in LM responses to open-ended prompts (where identity classifications are left unspecified) are lacking and have not yet been grounded in end-consumer harms. Here, we advance studies of generative LM bias by considering a broader set of natural use cases via open-ended prompting. In this "laissez-faire" setting, we find that synthetically generated texts from five of the most pervasive LMs (ChatGPT3.5, ChatGPT4, Claude2.0, Llama2, and PaLM2) perpetuate harms of omission, subordination, and stereotyping for minoritized individuals with intersectional race, gender, and/or sexual orientation identities (AI/AN, Asian, Black, Latine, MENA, NH/PI, Female, Non-binary, Queer). We find widespread evidence of bias to an extent that such individuals are hundreds to thousands of times more likely to encounter LM-generated outputs that portray their identities in a subordinated manner compared to representative or empowering portrayals. We also document a prevalence of stereotypes (e.g. perpetual foreigner) in LM-generated outputs that are known to trigger psychological harms that disproportionately affect minoritized individuals. These include stereotype threat, which leads to impaired cognitive performance and increased negative self-perception. Our findings highlight the urgent need to protect consumers from discriminatory harms caused by language models and invest in critical AI education programs tailored towards empowering diverse consumers.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 37 of its 187 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Apr 2024.

Builds on

37 of 187 references.

References · 37

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
  3. 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,346
  4. 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 2,997
  5. 2022BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Modelcited by 1,968
  6. 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
  7. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
  8. 2023PaLM 2 Technical Reportcited by 1,154
  9. 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,023
  10. 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 951
  11. 2022Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learnedcited by 702
  12. 2019The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generationcited by 540
25 more
  1. 2021BOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generationcited by 410
  2. 2021AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmarkcited by 340
  3. 2023Stable Bias: Analyzing Societal Representations in Diffusion Modelscited by 225
  4. 2023Marked Personas: Using Natural Language Prompts to Measure Stereotypes in Language Modelscited by 204
  5. 2020Detecting Emergent Intersectional Biases: Contextualized Word Embeddings Contain a Distribution of Human-like Biasescited by 167
  6. 2021Bias Out-of-the-Box: An Empirical Analysis of Intersectional Occupational Biases in Popular Generative Language Modelscited by 141
  7. 2022Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reductioncited by 137
  8. 2019Towards a Critical Race Methodology in Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 124
  9. 2023Evaluating and Mitigating Discrimination in Language Model Decisionscited by 117
  10. 2013Discrimination in Online Ad Deliverycited by 93
  11. 2021On Measures of Biases and Harms in NLPcited by 81
  12. 2024Red-Teaming for Generative AI: Silver Bullet or Security Theater?cited by 81
  13. 2021A Survey of Race, Racism, and Anti-Racism in NLPcited by 74
  14. 2023The Foundation Model Transparency Indexcited by 63
  15. 2023Bias Against 93 Stigmatized Groups in Masked Language Models and Downstream Sentiment Classification Taskscited by 51
  16. 2022Characteristics of Harmful Text: Towards Rigorous Benchmarking of Language Modelscited by 49
  17. 2023WinoQueer: A Community-in-the-Loop Benchmark for Anti-LGBTQ+ Bias in Large Language Modelscited by 42
  18. 2022Theory-Grounded Measurement of U.S. Social Stereotypes in English Language Modelscited by 35
  19. 2024Large Language Models Portray Socially Subordinate Groups as More Homogeneous, Consistent with a Bias Observed in Humanscited by 31
  20. 2023WEIRD FAccTs: How Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic is FAccT?cited by 28
  21. 2023Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairnesscited by 26
  22. 2023Unmasking Nationality Bias: A Study of Human Perception of Nationalities in AI-Generated Articlescited by 16
  23. 2022Debiased Large Language Models Still Associate Muslims with Uniquely Violent Actscited by 8
  24. 2021Avoiding bias when inferring race using name-based approachescited by 6
  25. 2023Evaluating Machine Perception of Indigeneity: An Analysis of ChatGPT's Perceptions of Indigenous Roles in Diverse Scenarioscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 2.

4 papers.