The DOI matches its DataCite record; 86 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
Should ChatGPT be Biased? Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
As the capabilities of generative language models continue to advance, the implications of biases ingrained within these models have garnered increasing attention from researchers, practitioners, and the broader public. This article investigates the challenges and risks associated with biases in large-scale language models like ChatGPT. We discuss the origins of biases, stemming from, among others, the nature of training data, model specifications, algorithmic constraints, product design, and policy decisions. We explore the ethical concerns arising from the unintended consequences of biased model outputs. We further analyze the potential opportunities to mitigate biases, the inevitability of some biases, and the implications of deploying these models in various applications, such as virtual assistants, content generation, and chatbots. Finally, we review the current approaches to identify, quantify, and mitigate biases in language models, emphasizing the need for a multi-disciplinary, collaborative effort to develop more equitable, transparent, and responsible AI systems. This article aims to stimulate a thoughtful dialogue within the artificial intelligence community, encouraging researchers and developers to reflect on the role of biases in generative language models and the ongoing pursuit of ethical AI.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, generative conversational AI may also expose users to undesirable consequences, such as biases, misinformation, and manipulation (Brandtzaeg, et al. , 2022; Ferrara, 2023).”
From Why do people use ChatGPT? Exploring user motivations for generative conversational AI (2024) · cites this paper as Ferrara, 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This may be particularly true if generative conversational AI lacks domain-specific knowledge and usable and transparent verification mechanisms, leading to unintended consequences of biased or misinformed model outputs (Ferrara, 2023).”
From Why do people use ChatGPT? Exploring user motivations for generative conversational AI (2024) · cites this paper as Ferrara, 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“It is well-understood that models trained on human data - such as being pre-trained on human-written text or fine-tuned on human feedback - can exhibit human biases.”
From Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI (2025) · cites this paper as Ferrara, 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These range from parroting harmful stereotypes and misconceptions about certain social groups (Bianchi et al. 2023;Ferrara 2023)”
From Epistemic Injustice in Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Ferrara 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325
Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networks
Sutskever, I., Vinyals, O., & Le, Q. V. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.3215 · Cited by 17,766
Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer
Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., & Liu, P. J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10683 · Cited by 10,929
Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms
Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., & Klimov, O. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.06347 · Cited by 10,625
Corsaro, W. A., & Bourdieu, P. (1992) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2579985 · Cited by 9,968
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 · Cited by 6,988
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002 · Cited by 4,611
LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models
Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13971 · Cited by 4,602
Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.11903 · Cited by 4,263
Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.02155 · Cited by 4,208
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- D.K. Citron and F. Pasquale, 2014. "The scored society: Due process for automated predictions," Washington Law Review, volume 89, number 1, pp. 1-33, and at https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol89/iss1/2/, accessed 27 October 2023.
- S. Dev and J.M. Phillips, 2019. "Attenuating bias in word vectors," Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp. 879-887, and at https://proceedings.mlr.press/v89/dev19a.html, accessed 27 October 2023.
- A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A.N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, 2017. "Attention is all you need," Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, at https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017, accessed 27 October 2023.
- B.L. Whorf, 1964. Language, thought, and reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by John B. Carroll. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- R. Zellers, A. Holtzman, H. Rashkin, Y. Bisk, A. Farhadi, F. Roesner, and Y. Choi, 2019. "Defending against neural fake news," ANIPS'19: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, article number 812, pp. 9,054-9,065.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 4,254
Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2024) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7 · Cited by 2,267
The rise and potential of large language model based agents: a survey
Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., et al. (2025) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-024-4222-0 · Cited by 970
Ferrara, E. (2023) · Sci · doi:10.3390/sci6010003 · Cited by 875
Self-citationChatGPT: Jack of all trades, master of none
Kocoń, J., Cichecki, I., Kaszyca, O., Kochanek, M., Szydło, D., Baran, J., Bielaniewicz, J., Gruza, M., Janz, A., Kanclerz, K., et al. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101861 · Cited by 758
Metadata
- Authors
- Ferrara, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ferrara, Emilio
- ORCID
- Ferrara, Emilio
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 1396-0458 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2304.03738
- OpenAlex
- W4388488349
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 55 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 55
- FWCI
- 70.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- First Monday (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- First Monday (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, algorithmic bias, bias mitigation, training data bias, ethical AI, generative AI risks, chatbots, virtual assistants, content creation
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
