Cited by 42Ethics and Social Impacts of AIMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Contrastive Language-Vision AI Models Pretrained on Web-Scraped Multimodal Data Exhibit Sexual Objectification Bias

Open access
Wolfe, Robert, Yang, Yiwei, Howe, Bill, Caliskan, Aylin·2023·2023 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency

Abstract

Warning: The content of this paper may be upsetting or triggering.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3593013.3594072

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • RNNs' proficiency in handling sequential information renders them indispensable in applications requiring deep understanding of temporal dynamics, such as natural language tasks and time-series analysis.

    “This proficiency in handling sequential information renders them indispensable in applications that require a deep understanding of the temporal dynamics within data, such as natural language tasks and time-series analysis [155], [156].”
  • LLMs and other generative AI models exhibit novel bias categories, including gender stereotypes, exclusionary norms, disability-related biases, religious stereotypes, and sexual objectification.

    “In addition to known categories of bias observed in predictive ML models, new types of bias arise in LLMs and other generative AI models, e.g., gender stereotypes, exclusionary norms, undesirable biases towards mentions of disability, religious stereotypes, and sexual objectification [10,30,106,122].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Dane Archer, Bonita Iritani, Debra D Kimes, and Michael Barrios. 1983. Face-ism: Five studies of sex differences in facial prominence. Journal of Personality and social Psychology 45, 4 (1983), 725.
  2. Federico Bianchi, Pratyusha Kalluri, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Myra Cheng, Debora Nozza, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Dan Jurafsky, James Zou, and Aylin Caliskan. 2022. Easily accessible text-to-image generation amplifies demographic stereotypes at large scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.03759 (2022). · arXiv
  3. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender shades: Intersectional accu- racy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency. PMLR, 77-91.
  4. Aylin Caliskan, Joanna J Bryson, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science 356, 6334 (2017), 183-186.
  5. Mark Chen, Alec Radford, Rewon Child, Jeffrey Wu, Heewoo Jun, David Luan, and Ilya Sutskever. 2020. Generative pretraining from pixels. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 1691-1703.
  6. Jacob Cohen. 1992. Statistical power analysis. Current directions in psychological science 1, 3 (1992), 98-101.
  7. Alice H Eagly and Antonio Mladinic. 1989. Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and social psychology bulletin 15, 4 (1989), 543-558.
  8. Alice H Eagly and Antonio Mladinic. 1994. Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European review of social psychology 5, 1 (1994), 1-35.
  9. Barbara L Fredrickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts. 1997. Objectification theory: Toward understanding women's lived experiences and mental health risks. Psy- chology of women quarterly 21, 2 (1997), 173-206.
  10. Herminia Ibarra, Robin Ely, and Deborah Kolb. 2013. Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard business review 91, 9 (2013), 60-66.
  11. Chao Jia, Yinfei Yang, Ye Xia, Yi-Ting Chen, Zarana Parekh, Hieu Pham, Quoc V Le, Yunhsuan Sung, Zhen Li, and Tom Duerig. 2021. Scaling Up Visual and Vision-Language Representation Learning With Noisy Text Supervision. arXiv e-prints (2021), arXiv-2102.
  12. Maddalena Marini and Mahzarin R Banaji. 2020. An implicit gender sex-science association in the general population and STEM faculty. The Journal of General Psychology (2020), 1-28.
  13. Moin Nadeem, Anna Bethke, and Siva Reddy. 2020. Stereoset: Measuring stereo- typical bias in pretrained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09456 (2020). · arXiv
  14. Joon Sung Park, Michael S Bernstein, Robin N Brewer, Ece Kamar, and Mered- ith Ringel Morris. 2021. Understanding the Representation and Representative- ness of Age in AI Data Sets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.09058 (2021). · arXiv
  15. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog 1, 8 (2019), 9.
  16. Christina Richey. 2015. The CSWA survey on workplace climate and anti- harassment policies. In AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts# 47, Vol. 47. 406-01.
  17. Richard Socher, Milind Ganjoo, Christopher D Manning, and Andrew Ng. 2013. Zero-Shot Learning Through Cross-Modal Transfer. In Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems. 935-943.
  18. Yonglong Tian, Dilip Krishnan, and Phillip Isola. 2019. Contrastive Representation Distillation. In International Conference on Learning Representations.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolfe, R., Yang, Y., Howe, B., & Caliskan, A.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
2023 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-06-12
Pages
1174-1185
OpenAlex
W4377010286
Cited by
42
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8
FWCI
10.52
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
NIST (60NANB20D212T)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
gender bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review