human bias
Learning visual biases from human imagination
Carl Vondrick, Hamed Pirsiavash, Aude Oliva, Antonio Torralba
Although the human visual system can recognize many concepts under challenging conditions, it still has some biases. In this paper, we investigate whether we can extract these biases and transfer them into a machine recognition system. We introduce a novel method that, inspired by well-known tools in human psychophysics, estimates the biases that the human visual system might use for recognition, but in computer vision feature spaces. Our experiments are surprising, and suggest that classifiers from the human visual system can be transferred into a machine with some success. Since these classifiers seem to capture favorable biases in the human visual system, we further present an SVM formulation that constrains the orientation of the SVM hyperplane to agree with the bias from human visual system. Our results suggest that transferring this human bias into machines may help object recognition systems generalize across datasets and perform better when very little training data is available.
- Asia > India (0.05)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Maryland > Baltimore County (0.04)
- North America > United States > Maryland > Baltimore (0.04)
Human and LLM Biases in Hate Speech Annotations: A Socio-Demographic Analysis of Annotators and Targets
Giorgi, Tommaso, Cima, Lorenzo, Fagni, Tiziano, Avvenuti, Marco, Cresci, Stefano
The rise of online platforms exacerbated the spread of hate speech, demanding scalable and effective detection. However, the accuracy of hate speech detection systems heavily relies on human-labeled data, which is inherently susceptible to biases. While previous work has examined the issue, the interplay between the characteristics of the annotator and those of the target of the hate are still unexplored. We fill this gap by leveraging an extensive dataset with rich socio-demographic information of both annotators and targets, uncovering how human biases manifest in relation to the target's attributes. Our analysis surfaces the presence of widespread biases, which we quantitatively describe and characterize based on their intensity and prevalence, revealing marked differences. Furthermore, we compare human biases with those exhibited by persona-based LLMs. Our findings indicate that while persona-based LLMs do exhibit biases, these differ significantly from those of human annotators. Overall, our work offers new and nuanced results on human biases in hate speech annotations, as well as fresh insights into the design of AI-driven hate speech detection systems.
- South America > Chile > Santiago Metropolitan Region > Santiago Province > Santiago (0.04)
- Europe > Italy > Tuscany > Pisa Province > Pisa (0.04)
- Education (0.68)
- Government (0.46)
Human Bias in the Face of AI: The Role of Human Judgement in AI Generated Text Evaluation
Zhu, Tiffany, Weissburg, Iain, Zhang, Kexun, Wang, William Yang
As AI advances in text generation, human trust in AI generated content remains constrained by biases that go beyond concerns of accuracy. This study explores how bias shapes the perception of AI versus human generated content. Through three experiments involving text rephrasing, news article summarization, and persuasive writing, we investigated how human raters respond to labeled and unlabeled content. While the raters could not differentiate the two types of texts in the blind test, they overwhelmingly favored content labeled as "Human Generated," over those labeled "AI Generated," by a preference score of over 30%. We observed the same pattern even when the labels were deliberately swapped. This human bias against AI has broader societal and cognitive implications, as it undervalues AI performance. This study highlights the limitations of human judgment in interacting with AI and offers a foundation for improving human-AI collaboration, especially in creative fields.
- North America > Costa Rica (0.14)
- Atlantic Ocean > North Atlantic Ocean > English Channel > Dover Strait (0.05)
- North America > Mexico > Yucatán (0.04)
- (7 more...)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.68)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (0.47)
- Media (0.93)
- Transportation > Ground > Road (0.47)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Large Language Model (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Chatbot (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Issues > Social & Ethical Issues (1.00)
Interpretable Responsibility Sharing as a Heuristic for Task and Motion Planning
Yenicesu, Arda Sarp, Nourmohammadi, Sepehr, Cicek, Berk, Oguz, Ozgur S.
This article introduces a novel heuristic for Task and Motion Planning (TAMP) named Interpretable Responsibility Sharing (IRS), which enhances planning efficiency in domestic robots by leveraging human-constructed environments and inherent biases. Utilizing auxiliary objects (e.g., trays and pitchers), which are commonly found in household settings, IRS systematically incorporates these elements to simplify and optimize task execution. The heuristic is rooted in the novel concept of Responsibility Sharing (RS), where auxiliary objects share the task's responsibility with the embodied agent, dividing complex tasks into manageable sub-problems. This division not only reflects human usage patterns but also aids robots in navigating and manipulating within human spaces more effectively. By integrating Optimized Rule Synthesis (ORS) for decision-making, IRS ensures that the use of auxiliary objects is both strategic and context-aware, thereby improving the interpretability and effectiveness of robotic planning. Experiments conducted across various household tasks demonstrate that IRS significantly outperforms traditional methods by reducing the effort required in task execution and enhancing the overall decision-making process. This approach not only aligns with human intuitive methods but also offers a scalable solution adaptable to diverse domestic environments. Code is available at https://github.com/asyncs/IRS.
- North America > United States > New York > New York County > New York City (0.04)
- North America > United States > Michigan > Washtenaw County > Ann Arbor (0.04)
- North America > United States > Georgia > Fulton County > Atlanta (0.04)
- (6 more...)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Promising Solution (0.87)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (0.67)
How Random is Random? Evaluating the Randomness and Humaness of LLMs' Coin Flips
Van Koevering, Katherine, Kleinberg, Jon
One uniquely human trait is our inability to be random. We see and produce patterns where there should not be any and we do so in a predictable way. LLMs are supplied with human data and prone to human biases. In this work, we explore how LLMs approach randomness and where and how they fail through the lens of the well studied phenomena of generating binary random sequences. We find that GPT 4 and Llama 3 exhibit and exacerbate nearly every human bias we test in this context, but GPT 3.5 exhibits more random behavior. This dichotomy of randomness or humaness is proposed as a fundamental question of LLMs and that either behavior may be useful in different circumstances.
Learning visual biases from human imagination
Although the human visual system can recognize many concepts under challenging conditions, it still has some biases. In this paper, we investigate whether we can extract these biases and transfer them into a machine recognition system. We introduce a novel method that, inspired by well-known tools in human psychophysics, estimates the biases that the human visual system might use for recognition, but in computer vision feature spaces. Our experiments are surprising, and suggest that classifiers from the human visual system can be transferred into a machine with some success. Since these classifiers seem to capture favorable biases in the human visual system, we further present an SVM formulation that constrains the orientation of the SVM hyperplane to agree with the bias from human visual system. Our results suggest that transferring this human bias into machines may help object recognition systems generalize across datasets and perform better when very little training data is available.
- Asia > India (0.05)
- North America > United States > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge (0.04)
- North America > United States > Maryland > Baltimore County (0.04)
- North America > United States > Maryland > Baltimore (0.04)
How Prejudice Creeps into AI Systems
Machine learning (ML) algorithms identify patterns in data. Their major strength is the desired capability to find and discriminate classes in training data, and to use those insights to make predictions for new, unseen data. In the era of "big data", a large quantity of data is available, with all sorts of variables. The general assumption is that the more data is used, the more precise the algorithm and its predictions become. When using a large amount of data, it clearly contains many correlations.
Ripple CTO shuts down ChatGPT's XRP conspiracy theory
Ripple's chief technology officer has responded to a conspiracy theory fabricated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT, which alleges the XRP Ledger (XRPL) is somehow being secretly controlled by Ripple. According to a Dec. 3 Twitter thread by user Stefan Huber, when asked a series of questions regarding the decentralization of Ripple's XRP Ledger, the ChatGPT bot suggested that while people could participate in the governance of the blockchain, Ripple has the "ultimate control" of XRPL. Asked how this is possible without the consensus of participants and its publicly-available code, the AI alleged that Ripple may have "abilities that are not fully disclosed in the public source code." At one point, the AI said "the ultimate decision-making power" for XRPL "still lies with Ripple Labs" and the company could make changes "even if those changes do not have the support of the supermajority of the participants in the network." It also contrasted the XRPL with Bitcoin (BTC) saying the latter was "truly decentralized."