AI safety is a contentious topic. While some prominent figures of the AI community have argued that destructive general artificial intelligence (AI) is on the horizon, others derided their warning as a marketing stunt to sell large language models (LLMs). "If the call for'AI safety' is couched in terms of protecting humanity from rogue AIs, it very conveniently displaces accountability away from the corporations scaling harm in the name of profits," tweeted Emily Bender, a professor of computational linguistics at the University of Washington. Focusing on potential future harm from ever more powerful AI systems distracts from harm that is already happening today. Most of us do not set out to make software that is actively harmful.

Gender-neutral pronouns are increasingly being introduced across Western languages. Recent evaluations have however demonstrated that English NLP systems are unable to correctly process gender-neutral pronouns, with the risk of erasing and misgendering non-binary individuals. This paper examines a Dutch coreference resolution system's performance on gender-neutral pronouns, specifically hen and die. In Dutch, these pronouns were only introduced in 2016, compared to the longstanding existence of singular they in English. We additionally compare two debiasing techniques for coreference resolution systems in non-binary contexts: Counterfactual Data Augmentation (CDA) and delexicalisation. Moreover, because pronoun performance can be hard to interpret from a general evaluation metric like LEA, we introduce an innovative evaluation metric, the pronoun score, which directly represents the portion of correctly processed pronouns. Our results reveal diminished performance on gender-neutral pronouns compared to gendered counterparts. Nevertheless, although delexicalisation fails to yield improvements, CDA substantially reduces the performance gap between gendered and gender-neutral pronouns. We further show that CDA remains effective in low-resource settings, in which a limited set of debiasing documents is used. This efficacy extends to previously unseen neopronouns, which are currently infrequently used but may gain popularity in the future, underscoring the viability of effective debiasing with minimal resources and low computational costs.

Content Warning: This paper contains examples of misgendering and erasure that could be offensive and potentially triggering. Gender bias in language technologies has been widely studied, but research has mostly been restricted to a binary paradigm of gender. It is essential also to consider non-binary gender identities, as excluding them can cause further harm to an already marginalized group. In this paper, we comprehensively evaluate popular language models for their ability to correctly use English gender-neutral pronouns (e.g., singular they, them) and neo-pronouns (e.g., ze, xe, thon) that are used by individuals whose gender identity is not represented by binary pronouns. We introduce MISGENDERED, a framework for evaluating large language models' ability to correctly use preferred pronouns, consisting of (i) instances declaring an individual's pronoun, followed by a sentence with a missing pronoun, and (ii) an experimental setup for evaluating masked and auto-regressive language models using a unified method. When prompted out-of-the-box, language models perform poorly at correctly predicting neo-pronouns (averaging 7.7% accuracy) and gender-neutral pronouns (averaging 34.2% accuracy). This inability to generalize results from a lack of representation of non-binary pronouns in training data and memorized associations. Few-shot adaptation with explicit examples in the prompt improves performance for neo-pronouns, but only to 64.7% even with 20 shots. We release the full dataset, code, and demo at https://tamannahossainkay.github.io/misgendered/

As 3rd-person pronoun usage shifts to include novel forms, e.g., neopronouns, we need more research on identity-inclusive NLP. Exclusion is particularly harmful in one of the most popular NLP applications, machine translation (MT). Wrong pronoun translations can discriminate against marginalized groups, e.g., non-binary individuals (Dev et al., 2021). In this ``reality check'', we study how three commercial MT systems translate 3rd-person pronouns. Concretely, we compare the translations of gendered vs. gender-neutral pronouns from English to five other languages (Danish, Farsi, French, German, Italian), and vice versa, from Danish to English. Our error analysis shows that the presence of a gender-neutral pronoun often leads to grammatical and semantic translation errors. Similarly, gender neutrality is often not preserved. By surveying the opinions of affected native speakers from diverse languages, we provide recommendations to address the issue in future MT research.

In this multicultural age, language translation is one of the most performed tasks, and it is becoming increasingly AI-moderated and automated. As a novel AI system, ChatGPT claims to be proficient in such translation tasks and in this paper, we put that claim to the test. Specifically, we examine ChatGPT's accuracy in translating between English and languages that exclusively use gender-neutral pronouns. We center this study around Bengali, the 7$^{th}$ most spoken language globally, but also generalize our findings across five other languages: Farsi, Malay, Tagalog, Thai, and Turkish. We find that ChatGPT perpetuates gender defaults and stereotypes assigned to certain occupations (e.g. man = doctor, woman = nurse) or actions (e.g. woman = cook, man = go to work), as it converts gender-neutral pronouns in languages to `he' or `she'. We also observe ChatGPT completely failing to translate the English gender-neutral pronoun `they' into equivalent gender-neutral pronouns in other languages, as it produces translations that are incoherent and incorrect. While it does respect and provide appropriately gender-marked versions of Bengali words when prompted with gender information in English, ChatGPT appears to confer a higher respect to men than to women in the same occupation. We conclude that ChatGPT exhibits the same gender biases which have been demonstrated for tools like Google Translate or MS Translator, as we provide recommendations for a human centered approach for future designers of AIs that perform language translation to better accommodate such low-resource languages.