There is a significant body of work looking at the ethical considerations of large language models (LLMs): critiquing tools to measure performance and harms; proposing toolkits to aid in ideation; discussing the risks to workers; considering legislation around privacy and security etc. As yet there is no work that integrates these resources into a single practical guide that focuses on LLMs; we attempt this ambitious goal. We introduce 'LLM Ethics Whitepaper', which we provide as an open and living resource for NLP practitioners, and those tasked with evaluating the ethical implications of others' work. Our goal is to translate ethics literature into concrete recommendations and provocations for thinking with clear first steps, aimed at computer scientists. 'LLM Ethics Whitepaper' distils a thorough literature review into clear Do's and Don'ts, which we present also in this paper. We likewise identify useful toolkits to support ethical work. We refer the interested reader to the full LLM Ethics Whitepaper, which provides a succinct discussion of ethical considerations at each stage in a project lifecycle, as well as citations for the hundreds of papers from which we drew our recommendations. The present paper can be thought of as a pocket guide to conducting ethical research with LLMs.

This whitepaper offers an overview of the ethical considerations surrounding research into or with large language models (LLMs). As LLMs become more integrated into widely used applications, their societal impact increases, bringing important ethical questions to the forefront. With a growing body of work examining the ethical development, deployment, and use of LLMs, this whitepaper provides a comprehensive and practical guide to best practices, designed to help those in research and in industry to uphold the highest ethical standards in their work.

Content moderators play a key role in keeping the conversation on social media healthy. While the high volume of content they need to judge represents a bottleneck to the moderation pipeline, no studies have explored how models could support them to make faster decisions. There is, by now, a vast body of research into detecting hate speech, sometimes explicitly motivated by a desire to help improve content moderation, but published research using real content moderators is scarce. In this work we investigate the effect of explanations on the speed of real-world moderators. Our experiments show that while generic explanations do not affect their speed and are often ignored, structured explanations lower moderators' decision making time by 7.4%.

Many tasks related to Computational Social Science and Web Content Analysis involve classifying pieces of text based on the claims they contain. State-of-the-art approaches usually involve fine-tuning models on large annotated datasets, which are costly to produce. In light of this, we propose and release a qualitative and versatile few-shot learning methodology as a common paradigm for any claim-based textual classification task. This methodology involves defining the classes as arbitrarily sophisticated taxonomies of claims, and using Natural Language Inference models to obtain the textual entailment between these and a corpus of interest. The performance of these models is then boosted by annotating a minimal sample of data points, dynamically sampled using the well-established statistical heuristic of Probabilistic Bisection. We illustrate this methodology in the context of three tasks: climate change contrarianism detection, topic/stance classification and depression-relates symptoms detection.

Cutting-edge image generation has been praised for producing high-quality images, suggesting a ubiquitous future in a variety of applications. However, initial studies have pointed to the potential for harm due to predictive bias, reflecting and potentially reinforcing cultural stereotypes. In this work, we are the first to investigate how multimodal models handle diverse gender identities. Concretely, we conduct a thorough analysis in which we compare the output of three image generation models for prompts containing cisgender vs. non-cisgender identity terms. Our findings demonstrate that certain non-cisgender identities are consistently (mis)represented as less human, more stereotyped and more sexualised. We complement our experimental analysis with (a)~a survey among non-cisgender individuals and (b) a series of interviews, to establish which harms affected individuals anticipate, and how they would like to be represented. We find respondents are particularly concerned about misrepresentation, and the potential to drive harmful behaviours and beliefs. Simple heuristics to limit offensive content are widely rejected, and instead respondents call for community involvement, curated training data and the ability to customise. These improvements could pave the way for a future where change is led by the affected community, and technology is used to positively ``[portray] queerness in ways that we haven't even thought of'' rather than reproducing stale, offensive stereotypes.

Sentiment analysis (SA) systems are widely deployed in many of the world's languages, and there is well-documented evidence of demographic bias in these systems. In languages beyond English, scarcer training data is often supplemented with transfer learning using pre-trained models, including multilingual models trained on other languages. In some cases, even supervision data comes from other languages. Does cross-lingual transfer also import new biases? To answer this question, we use counterfactual evaluation to test whether gender or racial biases are imported when using cross-lingual transfer, compared to a monolingual transfer setting. Across five languages, we find that systems using cross-lingual transfer usually become more biased than their monolingual counterparts. We also find racial biases to be much more prevalent than gender biases. To spur further research on this topic, we release the sentiment models we used for this study, and the intermediate checkpoints throughout training, yielding 1,525 distinct models; we also release our evaluation code.