Understanding and Mitigating Risks of Generative AI in Financial Services

To responsibly develop Generative AI (GenAI) products, it is critical to define the scope of acceptable inputs and outputs. What constitutes a "safe" response is an actively debated question. Academic work puts an outsized focus on evaluating models by themselves for general purpose aspects such as toxicity, bias, and fairness, especially in conversational applications being used by a broad audience. In contrast, less focus is put on considering sociotechnical systems in specialized domains. Yet, those specialized systems can be subject to extensive and well-understood legal and regulatory scrutiny. These product-specific considerations need to be set in industry-specific laws, regulations, and corporate governance requirements. In this paper, we aim to highlight AI content safety considerations specific to the financial services domain and outline an associated AI content risk taxonomy. We compare this taxonomy to existing work in this space and discuss implications of risk category violations on various stakeholders. We evaluate how existing open-source technical guardrail solutions cover this taxonomy by assessing them on data collected via red-teaming activities. Our results demonstrate that these guardrails fail to detect most of the content risks we discuss.

Leveraging Large Language Models and Topic Modeling for Toxicity Classification

Content moderation and toxicity classification represent critical tasks with significant social implications. However, studies have shown that major classification models exhibit tendencies to magnify or reduce biases and potentially overlook or disadvantage certain marginalized groups within their classification processes. Researchers suggest that the positionality of annotators influences the gold standard labels in which the models learned from propagate annotators' bias. To further investigate the impact of annotator positionality, we delve into fine-tuning BERTweet and HateBERT on the dataset while using topic-modeling strategies for content moderation. The results indicate that fine-tuning the models on specific topics results in a notable improvement in the F1 score of the models when compared to the predictions generated by other prominent classification models such as GPT-4, PerspectiveAPI, and RewireAPI. These findings further reveal that the state-of-the-art large language models exhibit significant limitations in accurately detecting and interpreting text toxicity contrasted with earlier methodologies. Code is available at https://github.com/aheldis/Toxicity-Classification.git.