This work provides an explanatory view of how LLMs can apply moral reasoning to both criticize and defend sexist language. We assessed eight large language models, all of which demonstrated the capability to provide explanations grounded in varying moral perspectives for both critiquing and endorsing views that reflect sexist assumptions. With both human and automatic evaluation, we show that all eight models produce comprehensible and contextually relevant text, which is helpful in understanding diverse views on how sexism is perceived. Also, through analysis of moral foundations cited by LLMs in their arguments, we uncover the diverse ideological perspectives in models' outputs, with some models aligning more with progressive or conservative views on gender roles and sexism. Based on our observations, we caution against the potential misuse of LLMs to justify sexist language. We also highlight that LLMs can serve as tools for understanding the roots of sexist beliefs and designing well-informed interventions. Given this dual capacity, it is crucial to monitor LLMs and design safety mechanisms for their use in applications that involve sensitive societal topics, such as sexism.

With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) possessing increasingly impressive capabilities, a number of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have been proposed to augment LLMs with visual inputs. Such models condition generated text on both an input image and a text prompt, enabling a variety of use cases such as visual question answering and multimodal chat. While prior studies have examined the social biases contained in text generated by LLMs, this topic has been relatively unexplored in LVLMs. Examining social biases in LVLMs is particularly challenging due to the confounding contributions of bias induced by information contained across the text and visual modalities. To address this challenging problem, we conduct a large-scale study of text generated by different LVLMs under counterfactual changes to input images. Specifically, we present LVLMs with identical open-ended text prompts while conditioning on images from different counterfactual sets, where each set contains images which are largely identical in their depiction of a common subject (e.g., a doctor), but vary only in terms of intersectional social attributes (e.g., race and gender). We comprehensively evaluate the text produced by different LVLMs under this counterfactual generation setting and find that social attributes such as race, gender, and physical characteristics depicted in input images can significantly influence toxicity and the generation of competency-associated words.

Content Warning: This paper presents examples of gender stereotypes that may be offensive or upsetting. Gender stereotypes are pervasive beliefs about individuals based on their gender that play a significant role in shaping societal attitudes, behaviours, and even opportunities. Recognizing the negative implications of gender stereotypes, particularly in online communications, this study investigates eleven strategies to automatically counteract and challenge these views. We present AI-generated gender-based counter-stereotypes to (self-identified) male and female study participants and ask them to assess their offensiveness, plausibility, and potential effectiveness. The strategies of counter-facts and broadening universals (i.e., stating that anyone can have a trait regardless of group membership) emerged as the most robust approaches, while humour, perspective-taking, counter-examples, and empathy for the speaker were perceived as less effective. Also, the differences in ratings were more pronounced for stereotypes about the different targets than between the genders of the raters. Alarmingly, many AI-generated counter-stereotypes were perceived as offensive and/or implausible. Our analysis and the collected dataset offer foundational insight into counter-stereotype generation, guiding future efforts to develop strategies that effectively challenge gender stereotypes in online interactions.

Following on recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and subsequent chat models, a new wave of large vision-language models (LVLMs) has emerged. Such models can incorporate images as input in addition to text, and perform tasks such as visual question answering, image captioning, story generation, etc. Here, we examine potential gender and racial biases in such systems, based on the perceived characteristics of the people in the input images. To accomplish this, we present a new dataset PAIRS (PArallel Images for eveRyday Scenarios). The PAIRS dataset contains sets of AI-generated images of people, such that the images are highly similar in terms of background and visual content, but differ along the dimensions of gender (man, woman) and race (Black, white). By querying the LVLMs with such images, we observe significant differences in the responses according to the perceived gender or race of the person depicted.

Classifiers tend to learn a false causal relationship between an over-represented concept and a label, which can result in over-reliance on the concept and compromised classification accuracy. It is imperative to have methods in place that can compare different models and identify over-reliances on specific concepts. We consider three well-known abusive language classifiers trained on large English datasets and focus on the concept of negative emotions, which is an important signal but should not be learned as a sufficient feature for the label of abuse. Motivated by the definition of global sufficiency, we first examine the unwanted dependencies learned by the classifiers by assessing their accuracy on a challenge set across all decision thresholds. Further, recognizing that a challenge set might not always be available, we introduce concept-based explanation metrics to assess the influence of the concept on the labels. These explanations allow us to compare classifiers regarding the degree of false global sufficiency they have learned between a concept and a label.

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 450 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.

The criminalization of poverty has been widely denounced as a collective bias against the most vulnerable. NGOs and international organizations claim that the poor are blamed for their situation, are more often associated with criminal offenses than the wealthy strata of society and even incur criminal offenses simply as a result of being poor. While no evidence has been found in the literature that correlates poverty and overall criminality rates, this paper offers evidence of a collective belief that associates both concepts. This brief report measures the societal bias that correlates criminality with the poor, as compared to the rich, by using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques in Twitter. The paper quantifies the level of crime-poverty bias in a panel of eight different English-speaking countries. The regional differences in the association between crime and poverty cannot be justified based on different levels of inequality or unemployment, which the literature correlates to property crimes. The variation in the observed rates of crime-poverty bias for different geographic locations could be influenced by cultural factors and the tendency to overestimate the equality of opportunities and social mobility in specific countries. These results have consequences for policy-making and open a new path of research for poverty mitigation with the focus not only on the poor but on society as a whole. Acting on the collective bias against the poor would facilitate the approval of poverty reduction policies, as well as the restoration of the dignity of the persons affected.

As text-to-image systems continue to grow in popularity with the general public, questions have arisen about bias and diversity in the generated images. Here, we investigate properties of images generated in response to prompts which are visually under-specified, but contain salient social attributes (e.g., 'a portrait of a threatening person' versus 'a portrait of a friendly person'). Grounding our work in social cognition theory, we find that in many cases, images contain similar demographic biases to those reported in the stereotype literature. However, trends are inconsistent across different models and further investigation is warranted.

Stereotypical language expresses widely-held beliefs about different social categories. Many stereotypes are overtly negative, while others may appear positive on the surface, but still lead to negative consequences. In this work, we present a computational approach to interpreting stereotypes in text through the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), a comprehensive causal theory from social psychology. The SCM proposes that stereotypes can be understood along two primary dimensions: warmth and competence. We present a method for defining warmth and competence axes in semantic embedding space, and show that the four quadrants defined by this subspace accurately represent the warmth and competence concepts, according to annotated lexicons. We then apply our computational SCM model to textual stereotype data and show that it compares favourably with survey-based studies in the psychological literature. Furthermore, we explore various strategies to counter stereotypical beliefs with anti-stereotypes. It is known that countering stereotypes with anti-stereotypical examples is one of the most effective ways to reduce biased thinking, yet the problem of generating anti-stereotypes has not been previously studied. Thus, a better understanding of how to generate realistic and effective anti-stereotypes can contribute to addressing pressing societal concerns of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination.

The pervasiveness of abusive content on the internet can lead to severe psychological and physical harm. Significant effort in Natural Language Processing (NLP) research has been devoted to addressing this problem through abusive content detection and related sub-areas, such as the detection of hate speech, toxicity, cyberbullying, etc. Although current technologies achieve high classification performance in research studies, it has been observed that the real-life application of this technology can cause unintended harms, such as the silencing of under-represented groups. We review a large body of NLP research on automatic abuse detection with a new focus on ethical challenges, organized around eight established ethical principles: privacy, accountability, safety and security, transparency and explainability, fairness and non-discrimination, human control of technology, professional responsibility, and promotion of human values. In many cases, these principles relate not only to situational ethical codes, which may be context-dependent, but are in fact connected to universal human rights, such as the right to privacy, freedom from discrimination, and freedom of expression. We highlight the need to examine the broad social impacts of this technology, and to bring ethical and human rights considerations to every stage of the application life-cycle, from task formulation and dataset design, to model training and evaluation, to application deployment. Guided by these principles, we identify several opportunities for rights-respecting, socio-technical solutions to detect and confront online abuse, including 'nudging', 'quarantining', value sensitive design, counter-narratives, style transfer, and AI-driven public education applications.