The rapid proliferation of generative AI has raised questions about the competitiveness of lower-parameter, locally tunable, open-weight models relative to high-parameter, API-guarded, closed-weight models in terms of performance, domain adaptation, cost, and generalization. Centering under-resourced yet risk-intolerant settings in government, research, and healthcare, we see for-profit closed-weight models as incompatible with requirements for transparency, privacy, adaptability, and standards of evidence. Yet the performance penalty in using open-weight models, especially in low-data and low-resource settings, is unclear. We assess the feasibility of using smaller, open-weight models to replace GPT-4-Turbo in zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuned regimes, assuming access to only a single, low-cost GPU. We assess value-sensitive issues around bias, privacy, and abstention on three additional tasks relevant to those topics. We find that with relatively low effort, very low absolute monetary cost, and relatively little data for fine-tuning, small open-weight models can achieve competitive performance in domain-adapted tasks without sacrificing generality. We then run experiments considering practical issues in bias, privacy, and hallucination risk, finding that open models offer several benefits over closed models. We intend this work as a case study in understanding the opportunity cost of reproducibility and transparency over for-profit state-of-the-art zero shot performance, finding this cost to be marginal under realistic settings.

Generative AI appears poised to transform white collar professions, with more than 90% of Fortune 500 companies using OpenAI's flagship GPT models, which have been characterized as "general purpose technologies" capable of effecting epochal changes in the economy. But how will such technologies impact organizations whose job is to verify and report factual information, and to ensure the health of the information ecosystem? To investigate this question, we conducted 30 interviews with N=38 participants working at 29 fact-checking organizations across six continents, asking about how they use generative AI and the opportunities and challenges they see in the technology. We found that uses of generative AI envisioned by fact-checkers differ based on organizational infrastructure, with applications for quality assurance in Editing, for trend analysis in Investigation, and for information literacy in Advocacy. We used the TOE framework to describe participant concerns ranging from the Technological (lack of transparency), to the Organizational (resource constraints), to the Environmental (uncertain and evolving policy). Building on the insights of our participants, we describe value tensions between fact-checking and generative AI, and propose a novel Verification dimension to the design space of generative models for information verification work. Finally, we outline an agenda for fairness, accountability, and transparency research to support the responsible use of generative AI in fact-checking. Throughout, we highlight the importance of human infrastructure and labor in producing verified information in collaboration with AI. We expect that this work will inform not only the scientific literature on fact-checking, but also contribute to understanding of organizational adaptation to a powerful but unreliable new technology.

Language models are trained on large-scale corpora that embed implicit biases documented in psychology. Valence associations (pleasantness/unpleasantness) of social groups determine the biased attitudes towards groups and concepts in social cognition. Building on this established literature, we quantify how social groups are valenced in English language models using a sentence template that provides an intersectional context. We study biases related to age, education, gender, height, intelligence, literacy, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, social class, and weight. We present a concept projection approach to capture the valence subspace through contextualized word embeddings of language models. Adapting the projection-based approach to embedding association tests that quantify bias, we find that language models exhibit the most biased attitudes against gender identity, social class, and sexual orientation signals in language. We find that the largest and better-performing model that we study is also more biased as it effectively captures bias embedded in sociocultural data. We validate the bias evaluation method by overperforming on an intrinsic valence evaluation task. The approach enables us to measure complex intersectional biases as they are known to manifest in the outputs and applications of language models that perpetuate historical biases. Moreover, our approach contributes to design justice as it studies the associations of groups underrepresented in language such as transgender and homosexual individuals.

Nine language-vision AI models trained on web scrapes with the Contrastive Language-Image Pretraining (CLIP) objective are evaluated for evidence of a bias studied by psychologists: the sexual objectification of girls and women, which occurs when a person's human characteristics, such as emotions, are disregarded and the person is treated as a body. We replicate three experiments in psychology quantifying sexual objectification and show that the phenomena persist in AI. A first experiment uses standardized images of women from the Sexual OBjectification and EMotion Database, and finds that human characteristics are disassociated from images of objectified women: the model's recognition of emotional state is mediated by whether the subject is fully or partially clothed. Embedding association tests (EATs) return significant effect sizes for both anger (d >0.80) and sadness (d >0.50), associating images of fully clothed subjects with emotions. GRAD-CAM saliency maps highlight that CLIP gets distracted from emotional expressions in objectified images. A second experiment measures the effect in a representative application: an automatic image captioner (Antarctic Captions) includes words denoting emotion less than 50% as often for images of partially clothed women than for images of fully clothed women. A third experiment finds that images of female professionals (scientists, doctors, executives) are likely to be associated with sexual descriptions relative to images of male professionals. A fourth experiment shows that a prompt of "a [age] year old girl" generates sexualized images (as determined by an NSFW classifier) up to 73% of the time for VQGAN-CLIP and Stable Diffusion; the corresponding rate for boys never surpasses 9%. The evidence indicates that language-vision AI models trained on web scrapes learn biases of sexual objectification, which propagate to downstream applications.

We use a dataset of U.S. first names with labels based on predominant gender and racial group to examine the effect of training corpus frequency on tokenization, contextualization, similarity to initial representation, and bias in BERT, GPT-2, T5, and XLNet. We show that predominantly female and non-white names are less frequent in the training corpora of these four language models. We find that infrequent names are more self-similar across contexts, with Spearman's r between frequency and self-similarity as low as -.763. Infrequent names are also less similar to initial representation, with Spearman's r between frequency and linear centered kernel alignment (CKA) similarity to initial representation as high as .702. Moreover, we find Spearman's r between racial bias and name frequency in BERT of .492, indicating that lower-frequency minority group names are more associated with unpleasantness. Representations of infrequent names undergo more processing, but are more self-similar, indicating that models rely on less context-informed representations of uncommon and minority names which are overfit to a lower number of observed contexts.