Search

Hundreds of millions of people now interact with language models, with uses ranging from serving as a writing aid to informing hiring decisions. Yet these language models are known to perpetuate systematic racial prejudices, making their judgments biased in problematic ways about groups like African Americans. While prior research has focused on overt racism in language models, social scientists have argued that racism with a more subtle character has developed over time. It is unknown whether this covert racism manifests in language models. Here, we demonstrate that language models embody covert racism in the form of dialect prejudice: we extend research showing that Americans hold raciolinguistic stereotypes about speakers of African American English and find that language models have the same prejudice, exhibiting covert stereotypes that are more negative than any human stereotypes about African Americans ever experimentally recorded, although closest to the ones from before the civil rights movement. By contrast, the language models' overt stereotypes about African Americans are much more positive. We demonstrate that dialect prejudice has the potential for harmful consequences by asking language models to make hypothetical decisions about people, based only on how they speak. Language models are more likely to suggest that speakers of African American English be assigned less prestigious jobs, be convicted of crimes, and be sentenced to death. Finally, we show that existing methods for alleviating racial bias in language models such as human feedback training do not mitigate the dialect prejudice, but can exacerbate the discrepancy between covert and overt stereotypes, by teaching language models to superficially conceal the racism that they maintain on a deeper level. Our findings have far-reaching implications for the fair and safe employment of language technology.

A rapidly growing number of voices argue that AI research, and computer vision in particular, is powering mass surveillance. Yet the direct path from computer vision research to surveillance has remained obscured and difficult to assess. Here, we reveal the Surveillance AI pipeline by analyzing three decades of computer vision research papers and downstream patents, more than 40,000 documents. We find the large majority of annotated computer vision papers and patents self-report their technology enables extracting data about humans. Moreover, the majority of these technologies specifically enable extracting data about human bodies and body parts. We present both quantitative and rich qualitative analysis illuminating these practices of human data extraction. Studying the roots of this pipeline, we find that institutions that prolifically produce computer vision research, namely elite universities and "big tech" corporations, are subsequently cited in thousands of surveillance patents. Further, we find consistent evidence against the narrative that only these few rogue entities are contributing to surveillance. Rather, we expose the fieldwide norm that when an institution, nation, or subfield authors computer vision papers with downstream patents, the majority of these papers are used in surveillance patents. In total, we find the number of papers with downstream surveillance patents increased more than five-fold between the 1990s and the 2010s, with computer vision research now having been used in more than 11,000 surveillance patents. Finally, in addition to the high levels of surveillance we find documented in computer vision papers and patents, we unearth pervasive patterns of documents using language that obfuscates the extent of surveillance. Our analysis reveals the pipeline by which computer vision research has powered the ongoing expansion of surveillance.

Machine learning models that convert user-written text descriptions into images are now widely available online and used by millions of users to generate millions of images a day. We investigate the potential for these models to amplify dangerous and complex stereotypes. We find a broad range of ordinary prompts produce stereotypes, including prompts simply mentioning traits, descriptors, occupations, or objects. For example, we find cases of prompting for basic traits or social roles resulting in images reinforcing whiteness as ideal, prompting for occupations resulting in amplification of racial and gender disparities, and prompting for objects resulting in reification of American norms. Stereotypes are present regardless of whether prompts explicitly mention identity and demographic language or avoid such language. Moreover, stereotypes persist despite mitigation strategies; neither user attempts to counter stereotypes by requesting images with specific counter-stereotypes nor institutional attempts to add system ``guardrails'' have prevented the perpetuation of stereotypes. Our analysis justifies concerns regarding the impacts of today's models, presenting striking exemplars, and connecting these findings with deep insights into harms drawn from social scientific and humanist disciplines. This work contributes to the effort to shed light on the uniquely complex biases in language-vision models and demonstrates the ways that the mass deployment of text-to-image generation models results in mass dissemination of stereotypes and resulting harms., Comment: FAccT 2023 paper. The published version is available at 10.1145/3593013.3594095

Despite the success of large vision and language models (VLMs) in many downstream applications, it is unclear how well they encode compositional information. Here, we create the Attribution, Relation, and Order (ARO) benchmark to systematically evaluate the ability of VLMs to understand different types of relationships, attributes, and order. ARO consists of Visual Genome Attribution, to test the understanding of objects' properties; Visual Genome Relation, to test for relational understanding; and COCO & Flickr30k-Order, to test for order sensitivity. ARO is orders of magnitude larger than previous benchmarks of compositionality, with more than 50,000 test cases. We show where state-of-the-art VLMs have poor relational understanding, can blunder when linking objects to their attributes, and demonstrate a severe lack of order sensitivity. VLMs are predominantly trained and evaluated on large datasets with rich compositional structure in the images and captions. Yet, training on these datasets has not been enough to address the lack of compositional understanding, and evaluating on these datasets has failed to surface this deficiency. To understand why these limitations emerge and are not represented in the standard tests, we zoom into the evaluation and training procedures. We demonstrate that it is possible to perform well on retrieval over existing datasets without using the composition and order information. Given that contrastive pretraining optimizes for retrieval on datasets with similar shortcuts, we hypothesize that this can explain why the models do not need to learn to represent compositional information. This finding suggests a natural solution: composition-aware hard negative mining. We show that a simple-to-implement modification of contrastive learning significantly improves the performance on tasks requiring understanding of order and compositionality., Comment: ICLR 2023 Oral (notable-top-5%)

AI is undergoing a paradigm shift with the rise of models (e.g., BERT, DALL-E, GPT-3) that are trained on broad data at scale and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. We call these models foundation models to underscore their critically central yet incomplete character. This report provides a thorough account of the opportunities and risks of foundation models, ranging from their capabilities (e.g., language, vision, robotics, reasoning, human interaction) and technical principles(e.g., model architectures, training procedures, data, systems, security, evaluation, theory) to their applications (e.g., law, healthcare, education) and societal impact (e.g., inequity, misuse, economic and environmental impact, legal and ethical considerations). Though foundation models are based on standard deep learning and transfer learning, their scale results in new emergent capabilities,and their effectiveness across so many tasks incentivizes homogenization. Homogenization provides powerful leverage but demands caution, as the defects of the foundation model are inherited by all the adapted models downstream. Despite the impending widespread deployment of foundation models, we currently lack a clear understanding of how they work, when they fail, and what they are even capable of due to their emergent properties. To tackle these questions, we believe much of the critical research on foundation models will require deep interdisciplinary collaboration commensurate with their fundamentally sociotechnical nature., Comment: Authored by the Center for Research on Foundation Models (CRFM) at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI). Report page with citation guidelines: https://crfm.stanford.edu/report.html

Machine learning currently exerts an outsized influence on the world, increasingly affecting institutional practices and impacted communities. It is therefore critical that we question vague conceptions of the field as value-neutral or universally beneficial, and investigate what specific values the field is advancing. In this paper, we first introduce a method and annotation scheme for studying the values encoded in documents such as research papers. Applying the scheme, we analyze 100 highly cited machine learning papers published at premier machine learning conferences, ICML and NeurIPS. We annotate key features of papers which reveal their values: their justification for their choice of project, which attributes of their project they uplift, their consideration of potential negative consequences, and their institutional affiliations and funding sources. We find that few of the papers justify how their project connects to a societal need (15\%) and far fewer discuss negative potential (1\%). Through line-by-line content analysis, we identify 59 values that are uplifted in ML research, and, of these, we find that the papers most frequently justify and assess themselves based on Performance, Generalization, Quantitative evidence, Efficiency, Building on past work, and Novelty. We present extensive textual evidence and identify key themes in the definitions and operationalization of these values. Notably, we find systematic textual evidence that these top values are being defined and applied with assumptions and implications generally supporting the centralization of power.Finally, we find increasingly close ties between these highly cited papers and tech companies and elite universities., Comment: Data and code available at https://github.com/wagnew3/The-Values-Encoded-in-Machine-Learning-Research. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2206.04179

Learning data representations that are transferable and are fair with respect to certain protected attributes is crucial to reducing unfair decisions while preserving the utility of the data. We propose an information-theoretically motivated objective for learning maximally expressive representations subject to fairness constraints. We demonstrate that a range of existing approaches optimize approximations to the Lagrangian dual of our objective. In contrast to these existing approaches, our objective allows the user to control the fairness of the representations by specifying limits on unfairness. Exploiting duality, we introduce a method that optimizes the model parameters as well as the expressiveness-fairness trade-off. Empirical evidence suggests that our proposed method can balance the trade-off between multiple notions of fairness and achieves higher expressiveness at a lower computational cost., Comment: AISTATS 2019, fixed a typo