Beyond the Surface: A Global-Scale Analysis of Visual Stereotypes in Text-to-Image Generation

Recent studies have highlighted the issue of stereotypical depictions for people of different identity groups in Text-to-Image (T2I) model generations. However, these existing approaches have several key limitations, including a noticeable lack of coverage of global identity groups in their evaluation, and the range of their associated stereotypes. Additionally, they often lack a critical distinction between inherently visual stereotypes, such as `underweight' or `sombrero', and culturally dependent stereotypes like `attractive' or `terrorist'. In this work, we address these limitations with a multifaceted approach that leverages existing textual resources to ground our evaluation of geo-cultural stereotypes in the generated images from T2I models. We employ existing stereotype benchmarks to identify and evaluate visual stereotypes at a global scale, spanning 135 nationality-based identity groups. We demonstrate that stereotypical attributes are thrice as likely to be present in images of these identities as compared to other attributes. We further investigate how disparately offensive the depictions of generated images are for different nationalities. Finally, through a detailed case study, we reveal how the 'default' representations of all identity groups have a stereotypical appearance. Moreover, for the Global South, images across different attributes are visually similar, even when explicitly prompted otherwise. CONTENT WARNING: Some examples may contain offensive stereotypes.

Disentangling Perceptions of Offensiveness: Cultural and Moral Correlates

Perception of offensiveness is inherently subjective, shaped by the lived experiences and socio-cultural values of the perceivers. Recent years have seen substantial efforts to build AI-based tools that can detect offensive language at scale, as a means to moderate social media platforms, and to ensure safety of conversational AI technologies such as ChatGPT and Bard. However, existing approaches treat this task as a technical endeavor, built on top of data annotated for offensiveness by a global crowd workforce without any attention to the crowd workers' provenance or the values their perceptions reflect. We argue that cultural and psychological factors play a vital role in the cognitive processing of offensiveness, which is critical to consider in this context. We re-frame the task of determining offensiveness as essentially a matter of moral judgment -- deciding the boundaries of ethically wrong vs. right language within an implied set of socio-cultural norms. Through a large-scale cross-cultural study based on 4309 participants from 21 countries across 8 cultural regions, we demonstrate substantial cross-cultural differences in perceptions of offensiveness. More importantly, we find that individual moral values play a crucial role in shaping these variations: moral concerns about Care and Purity are significant mediating factors driving cross-cultural differences. These insights are of crucial importance as we build AI models for the pluralistic world, where the values they espouse should aim to respect and account for moral values in diverse geo-cultural contexts.

SoUnD Framework: Analyzing (So)cial Representation in (Un)structured (D)ata

The unstructured nature of data used in foundation model development is a challenge to systematic analyses for making data use and documentation decisions. From a Responsible AI perspective, these decisions often rely upon understanding how people are represented in data. We propose a framework designed to guide analysis of human representation in unstructured data and identify downstream risks. We apply the framework in two toy examples using the Common Crawl web text corpus (C4) and LAION-400M. We also propose a set of hypothetical action steps in service of dataset use, development, and documentation.

A Framework to Assess agreement Among Diverse Rater Groups

Recent advancements in conversational AI have created an urgent need for safety guardrails that prevent users from being exposed to offensive and dangerous content. Much of this work relies on human ratings and feedback, but does not account for the fact that perceptions of offense and safety are inherently subjective and that there may be systematic disagreements between raters that align with their socio-demographic identities. Instead, current machine learning approaches largely ignore rater subjectivity and use gold standards that obscure disagreements (e.g., through majority voting). In order to better understand the socio-cultural leanings of such tasks, we propose a comprehensive disagreement analysis framework to measure systematic diversity in perspectives among different rater subgroups. We then demonstrate its utility by applying this framework to a dataset of human-chatbot conversations rated by a demographically diverse pool of raters. Our analysis reveals specific rater groups that have more diverse perspectives than the rest, and informs demographic axes that are crucial to consider for safety annotations.

A Taxonomy of Rater Disagreements: Surveying Challenges & Opportunities from the Perspective of Annotating Online Toxicity

Toxicity is an increasingly common and severe issue in online spaces. Consequently, a rich line of machine learning research over the past decade has focused on computationally detecting and mitigating online toxicity. These efforts crucially rely on human-annotated datasets that identify toxic content of various kinds in social media texts. However, such annotations historically yield low inter-rater agreement, which was often dealt with by taking the majority vote or other such approaches to arrive at a single ground truth label. Recent research has pointed out the importance of accounting for the subjective nature of this task when building and utilizing these datasets, and this has triggered work on analyzing and better understanding rater disagreements, and how they could be effectively incorporated into the machine learning developmental pipeline. While these efforts are filling an important gap, there is a lack of a broader framework about the root causes of rater disagreement, and therefore, we situate this work within that broader landscape. In this survey paper, we analyze a broad set of literature on the reasons behind rater disagreements focusing on online toxicity, and propose a detailed taxonomy for the same. Further, we summarize and discuss the potential solutions targeting each reason for disagreement. We also discuss several open issues, which could promote the future development of online toxicity research.

Building Socio-culturally Inclusive Stereotype Resources with Community Engagement

With rapid development and deployment of generative language models in global settings, there is an urgent need to also scale our measurements of harm, not just in the number and types of harms covered, but also how well they account for local cultural contexts, including marginalized identities and the social biases experienced by them. Current evaluation paradigms are limited in their abilities to address this, as they are not representative of diverse, locally situated but global, socio-cultural perspectives. It is imperative that our evaluation resources are enhanced and calibrated by including people and experiences from different cultures and societies worldwide, in order to prevent gross underestimations or skews in measurements of harm. In this work, we demonstrate a socio-culturally aware expansion of evaluation resources in the Indian societal context, specifically for the harm of stereotyping. We devise a community engaged effort to build a resource which contains stereotypes for axes of disparity that are uniquely present in India. The resultant resource increases the number of stereotypes known for and in the Indian context by over 1000 stereotypes across many unique identities. We also demonstrate the utility and effectiveness of such expanded resources for evaluations of language models. CONTENT WARNING: This paper contains examples of stereotypes that may be offensive.

MD3: The Multi-Dialect Dataset of Dialogues

We introduce a new dataset of conversational speech representing English from India, Nigeria, and the United States. The Multi-Dialect Dataset of Dialogues (MD3) strikes a new balance between open-ended conversational speech and task-oriented dialogue by prompting participants to perform a series of short information-sharing tasks. This facilitates quantitative cross-dialectal comparison, while avoiding the imposition of a restrictive task structure that might inhibit the expression of dialect features. Preliminary analysis of the dataset reveals significant differences in syntax and in the use of discourse markers. The dataset, which will be made publicly available with the publication of this paper, includes more than 20 hours of audio and more than 200,000 orthographically-transcribed tokens.

SeeGULL: A Stereotype Benchmark with Broad Geo-Cultural Coverage Leveraging Generative Models

Stereotype benchmark datasets are crucial to detect and mitigate social stereotypes about groups of people in NLP models. However, existing datasets are limited in size and coverage, and are largely restricted to stereotypes prevalent in the Western society. This is especially problematic as language technologies gain hold across the globe. To address this gap, we present SeeGULL, a broad-coverage stereotype dataset, built by utilizing generative capabilities of large language models such as PaLM, and GPT-3, and leveraging a globally diverse rater pool to validate the prevalence of those stereotypes in society. SeeGULL is in English, and contains stereotypes about identity groups spanning 178 countries across 8 different geo-political regions across 6 continents, as well as state-level identities within the US and India. We also include fine-grained offensiveness scores for different stereotypes and demonstrate their global disparities. Furthermore, we include comparative annotations about the same groups by annotators living in the region vs. those that are based in North America, and demonstrate that within-region stereotypes about groups differ from those prevalent in North America. CONTENT WARNING: This paper contains stereotype examples that may be offensive.

Cultural Re-contextualization of Fairness Research in Language Technologies in India

Recent research has revealed undesirable biases in NLP data and models. However, these efforts largely focus on social disparities in the West, and are not directly portable to other geo-cultural contexts. In this position paper, we outline a holistic research agenda to re-contextualize NLP fairness research for the Indian context, accounting for Indian societal context, bridging technological gaps in capability and resources, and adapting to Indian cultural values. We also summarize findings from an empirical study on various social biases along different axes of disparities relevant to India, demonstrating their prevalence in corpora and models.

Cultural Incongruencies in Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems attempt to imitate human behavior. How well they do this imitation is often used to assess their utility and to attribute human-like (or artificial) intelligence to them. However, most work on AI refers to and relies on human intelligence without accounting for the fact that human behavior is inherently shaped by the cultural contexts they are embedded in, the values and beliefs they hold, and the social practices they follow. Additionally, since AI technologies are mostly conceived and developed in just a handful of countries, they embed the cultural values and practices of these countries. Similarly, the data that is used to train the models also fails to equitably represent global cultural diversity. Problems therefore arise when these technologies interact with globally diverse societies and cultures, with different values and interpretive practices. In this position paper, we describe a set of cultural dependencies and incongruencies in the context of AI-based language and vision technologies, and reflect on the possibilities of and potential strategies towards addressing these incongruencies.