mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Representation Bias of Adolescents in AI: A Bilingual, Bicultural Study

arXiv 2408.01961 ↗First posted 4 Aug 2024cs.CY cs.AI cs.CLcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Popular and news media often portray teenagers with sensationalism, as both a risk to society and at risk from society. As AI begins to absorb some of the epistemic functions of traditional media, we study how teenagers in two countries speaking two languages: 1) are depicted by AI, and 2) how they would prefer to be depicted. Specifically, we study the biases about teenagers learned by static word embeddings (SWEs) and generative language models (GLMs), comparing these with the perspectives of adolescents living in the U.S. and Nepal. We find English-language SWEs associate teenagers with societal problems, and more than 50% of the 1,000 words most associated with teenagers in the pretrained GloVe SWE reflect such problems. Given prompts about teenagers, 30% of outputs from GPT2-XL and 29% from LLaMA-2-7B GLMs discuss societal problems, most commonly violence, but also drug use, mental illness, and sexual taboo. Nepali models, while not free of such associations, are less dominated by social problems. Data from workshops with N=13 U.S. adolescents and N=18 Nepalese adolescents show that AI presentations are disconnected from teenage life, which revolves around activities like school and friendship. Participant ratings of how well 20 trait words describe teens are decorrelated from SWE associations, with Pearson's r=.02, n.s. in English FastText and r=.06, n.s. in GloVe; and r=.06, n.s. in Nepali FastText and r=-.23, n.s. in GloVe. U.S. participants suggested AI could fairly present teens by highlighting diversity, while Nepalese participants centered positivity. Participants were optimistic that, if it learned from adolescents, rather than media sources, AI could help mitigate stereotypes. Our work offers an understanding of the ways SWEs and GLMs misrepresent a developmentally vulnerable group and provides a template for less sensationalized characterization.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 74 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Aug 2024.

Builds on

19 of 74 references.

References · 19

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  3. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  4. 2021High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Modelscited by 18,863
  5. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  6. 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,474
  7. 2020The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modelingcited by 2,411
  8. 2016Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Informationcited by 1,583
  9. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 901
  10. 2019The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generationcited by 541
  11. 2018Learning Word Vectors for 157 Languagescited by 280
  12. 2017Word Embeddings Quantify 100 Years of Gender and Ethnic Stereotypescited by 253
7 more
  1. 2014SimLex-999: Evaluating Semantic Models with (Genuine) Similarity Estimationcited by 172
  2. 2021Neural Machine Translation for Low-Resource Languages: A Surveycited by 109
  3. 2023The Participatory Turn in AI Design: Theoretical Foundations and the Current State of Practicecited by 87
  4. 2019Comparison of Diverse Decoding Methods from Conditional Language Modelscited by 78
  5. 2018What are the biases in my word embedding?cited by 30
  6. 2021Understanding the Representation and Representativeness of Age in AI Data Setscited by 15
  7. 2024Search Engines Post-ChatGPT: How Generative Artificial Intelligence Could Make Search Less Reliablecited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 1.

4 papers.