Large generative AI models (GMs) like GPT and DALL-E are trained to generate content for general, wide-ranging purposes. GM content filters are generalized to filter out content which has a risk of harm in many cases, e.g., hate speech. However, prohibited content is not always harmful -- there are instances where generating prohibited content can be beneficial. So, when GMs filter out content, they preclude beneficial use cases along with harmful ones. Which use cases are precluded reflects the values embedded in GM content filtering. Recent work on red teaming proposes methods to bypass GM content filters to generate harmful content. We coin the term green teaming to describe methods of bypassing GM content filters to design for beneficial use cases. We showcase green teaming by: 1) Using ChatGPT as a virtual patient to simulate a person experiencing suicidal ideation, for suicide support training; 2) Using Codex to intentionally generate buggy solutions to train students on debugging; and 3) Examining an Instagram page using Midjourney to generate images of anti-LGBTQ+ politicians in drag. Finally, we discuss how our use cases demonstrate green teaming as both a practical design method and a mode of critique, which problematizes and subverts current understandings of harms and values in generative AI.

Motivated by the growing importance of reducing unfairness in ML predictions, Fair-ML researchers have presented an extensive suite of algorithmic 'fairness-enhancing' remedies. Most existing algorithms, however, are agnostic to the sources of the observed unfairness. As a result, the literature currently lacks guiding frameworks to specify conditions under which each algorithmic intervention can potentially alleviate the underpinning cause of unfairness. To close this gap, we scrutinize the underlying biases (e.g., in the training data or design choices) that cause observational unfairness. We present the conceptual idea and a first implementation of a bias-injection sandbox tool to investigate fairness consequences of various biases and assess the effectiveness of algorithmic remedies in the presence of specific types of bias. We call this process the bias(stress)-testing of algorithmic interventions. Unlike existing toolkits, ours provides a controlled environment to counterfactually inject biases in the ML pipeline. This stylized setup offers the distinct capability of testing fairness interventions beyond observational data and against an unbiased benchmark. In particular, we can test whether a given remedy can alleviate the injected bias by comparing the predictions resulting after the intervention in the biased setting with true labels in the unbiased regime-that is, before any bias injection. We illustrate the utility of our toolkit via a proof-of-concept case study on synthetic data. Our empirical analysis showcases the type of insights that can be obtained through our simulations.

We revisit the notion of individual fairness first proposed by Dwork et al. [2012], which asks that "similar individuals should be treated similarly". A primary difficulty with this definition is that it assumes a completely specified fairness metric for the task at hand. In contrast, we consider a framework for fairness elicitation, in which fairness is indirectly specified only via a sample of pairs of individuals who should be treated (approximately) equally on the task. We make no assumption that these pairs are consistent with any metric. We provide a provably convergent oracle-efficient algorithm for minimizing error subject to the fairness constraints, and prove generalization theorems for both accuracy and fairness. Since the constrained pairs could be elicited either from a panel of judges, or from particular individuals, our framework provides a means for algorithmically enforcing subjective notions of fairness. We report on preliminary findings of a behavioral study of subjective fairness using human-subject fairness constraints elicited on the COMPAS criminal recidivism dataset.