Linguistic Bias in ChatGPT: Language Models Reinforce Dialect Discrimination
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Investigates linguistic bias in the popular language model ChatGPT, which can reinforce dialect discrimination
- Examines how ChatGPT's responses may vary based on the dialect or linguistic style used in the input
- Raises concerns about the potential for language models to perpetuate biases against certain dialects or linguistic variations
Plain English Explanation
This research paper looks at how the ChatGPT language model may exhibit linguistic bias. The researchers found that ChatGPT's responses can vary depending on the specific dialect or linguistic style used in the input prompts. This suggests that ChatGPT, and potentially other language models, could end up reinforcing discrimination against certain dialects or ways of speaking.
The paper highlights the importance of addressing biases in language models, as they are increasingly being used in a wide range of applications that impact people's lives. If these models show preference for or against particular dialects, it could lead to unfair treatment or disadvantages for individuals or communities who use those dialects. The study builds on previous work examining biases in language models related to nationality, gender, and other factors.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a series of experiments to assess the linguistic bias in ChatGPT. They generated prompts using different English dialects, such as African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and Standard American English (SAE), and compared the model's responses. The results showed that ChatGPT's responses varied significantly based on the dialect used, with more positive and helpful responses for prompts in SAE compared to AAVE.
The paper also explores the potential mechanisms behind this bias, such as the training data used to develop ChatGPT and the model's internal representations of different dialects. The researchers suggest that language models may be picking up on societal biases and stereotypes present in the data, which can then be reflected in their outputs.
Critical Analysis
While the research provides valuable insights into the linguistic biases in ChatGPT, the authors acknowledge that the study has limitations. For example, the analysis is primarily focused on the AAVE and SAE dialects, and it's unclear how the model would perform with other linguistic variations. Additionally, the paper does not delve into the potential impact of these biases in real-world applications.
It's also important to note that the findings may not be specific to ChatGPT alone, and similar biases could be present in other language models as well. Addressing these biases requires a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between language, culture, and societal perceptions.
Conclusion
This research highlights the need for increased awareness and mitigation of linguistic biases in language models like ChatGPT. As these models become more prevalent in various applications, it's crucial to ensure they do not perpetuate unfair treatment or discrimination against individuals or communities based on their linguistic style or dialect. Ongoing efforts to evaluate and improve the robustness of language models are essential for developing more inclusive and equitable AI systems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Linguistic Bias in ChatGPT: Language Models Reinforce Dialect Discrimination
Eve Fleisig, Genevieve Smith, Madeline Bossi, Ishita Rustagi, Xavier Yin, Dan Klein
We present a large-scale study of linguistic bias exhibited by ChatGPT covering ten dialects of English (Standard American English, Standard British English, and eight widely spoken non-standard varieties from around the world). We prompted GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4 with text by native speakers of each variety and analyzed the responses via detailed linguistic feature annotation and native speaker evaluation. We find that the models default to standard varieties of English; based on evaluation by native speakers, we also find that model responses to non-standard varieties consistently exhibit a range of issues: stereotyping (19% worse than for standard varieties), demeaning content (25% worse), lack of comprehension (9% worse), and condescending responses (15% worse). We also find that if these models are asked to imitate the writing style of prompts in non-standard varieties, they produce text that exhibits lower comprehension of the input and is especially prone to stereotyping. GPT-4 improves on GPT-3.5 in terms of comprehension, warmth, and friendliness, but also exhibits a marked increase in stereotyping (+18%). The results indicate that GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4 can perpetuate linguistic discrimination toward speakers of non-standard varieties.
Read more9/18/2024
💬
0
Quite Good, but Not Enough: Nationality Bias in Large Language Models -- A Case Study of ChatGPT
Shucheng Zhu, Weikang Wang, Ying Liu
While nationality is a pivotal demographic element that enhances the performance of language models, it has received far less scrutiny regarding inherent biases. This study investigates nationality bias in ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), a large language model (LLM) designed for text generation. The research covers 195 countries, 4 temperature settings, and 3 distinct prompt types, generating 4,680 discourses about nationality descriptions in Chinese and English. Automated metrics were used to analyze the nationality bias, and expert annotators alongside ChatGPT itself evaluated the perceived bias. The results show that ChatGPT's generated discourses are predominantly positive, especially compared to its predecessor, GPT-2. However, when prompted with negative inclinations, it occasionally produces negative content. Despite ChatGPT considering its generated text as neutral, it shows consistent self-awareness about nationality bias when subjected to the same pair-wise comparison annotation framework used by human annotators. In conclusion, while ChatGPT's generated texts seem friendly and positive, they reflect the inherent nationality biases in the real world. This bias may vary across different language versions of ChatGPT, indicating diverse cultural perspectives. The study highlights the subtle and pervasive nature of biases within LLMs, emphasizing the need for further scrutiny.
Read more5/14/2024
↗️
0
Identifying the sources of ideological bias in GPT models through linguistic variation in output
Christina Walker, Joan C. Timoneda
Extant work shows that generative AI models such as GPT-3.5 and 4 perpetuate social stereotypes and biases. One concerning but less explored source of bias is ideology. Do GPT models take ideological stances on politically sensitive topics? In this article, we provide an original approach to identifying ideological bias in generative models, showing that bias can stem from both the training data and the filtering algorithm. We leverage linguistic variation in countries with contrasting political attitudes to evaluate bias in average GPT responses to sensitive political topics in those languages. First, we find that GPT output is more conservative in languages that map well onto conservative societies (i.e., Polish), and more liberal in languages used uniquely in liberal societies (i.e., Swedish). This result provides strong evidence of training data bias in GPT models. Second, differences across languages observed in GPT-3.5 persist in GPT-4, even though GPT-4 is significantly more liberal due to OpenAI's filtering policy. Our main takeaway is that generative model training must focus on high-quality, curated datasets to reduce bias, even if it entails a compromise in training data size. Filtering responses after training only introduces new biases and does not remove the underlying training biases.
Read more9/11/2024
🚀
0
How Prevalent is Gender Bias in ChatGPT? -- Exploring German and English ChatGPT Responses
Stefanie Urchs, Veronika Thurner, Matthias A{ss}enmacher, Christian Heumann, Stephanie Thiemichen
With the introduction of ChatGPT, OpenAI made large language models (LLM) accessible to users with limited IT expertise. However, users with no background in natural language processing (NLP) might lack a proper understanding of LLMs. Thus the awareness of their inherent limitations, and therefore will take the systems' output at face value. In this paper, we systematically analyse prompts and the generated responses to identify possible problematic issues with a special focus on gender biases, which users need to be aware of when processing the system's output. We explore how ChatGPT reacts in English and German if prompted to answer from a female, male, or neutral perspective. In an in-depth investigation, we examine selected prompts and analyse to what extent responses differ if the system is prompted several times in an identical way. On this basis, we show that ChatGPT is indeed useful for helping non-IT users draft texts for their daily work. However, it is absolutely crucial to thoroughly check the system's responses for biases as well as for syntactic and grammatical mistakes.
Read more5/14/2024