PreprintCited by 13Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in Law

Evaluating and Mitigating Discrimination in Language Model Decisions

Open access
Tamkin, Alex, Askell, Amanda, Lovitt, Liane, Durmus, Esin, Joseph, Nicholas, Kravec, Shauna, Nguyen, Karina, Kaplan, Jared +1 more·2023·arXiv

Abstract

As language models (LMs) advance, interest is growing in applying them to high-stakes societal decisions, such as determining financing or housing eligibility. However, their potential for discrimination in such contexts raises ethical concerns, motivating the need for better methods to evaluate these risks. We present a method for proactively evaluating the potential discriminatory impact of LMs in a wide range of use cases, including hypothetical use cases where they have not yet been deployed. Specifically, we use an LM to generate a wide array of potential prompts that decision-makers may input into an LM, spanning 70 diverse decision scenarios across society, and systematically vary the demographic information in each prompt. Applying this methodology reveals patterns of both positive and negative discrimination in the Claude 2.0 model in select settings when no interventions are applied. While we do not endorse or permit the use of language models to make automated decisions for the high-risk use cases we study, we demonstrate techniques to significantly decrease both positive and negative discrimination through careful prompt engineering, providing pathways toward safer deployment in use cases where they may be appropriate. Our work enables developers and policymakers to anticipate, measure, and address discrimination as language model capabilities and applications continue to expand. We release our dataset and prompts at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Anthropic/discrim-eval

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2312.03689

Cites

62 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 1 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?

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

8 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Ali, M., Sapiezynski, P., Bogen, M., Korolova, A., Mislove, A., and Rieke, A. Discrimination through optimization: How facebook's ad delivery can lead to biased outcomes. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction, 3(CSCW):1-30, 2019.
  2. Bertrand, M. and Mullainathan, S. Are emily and greg more employable than lakisha and jamal? a field experiment on labor market discrimination. American economic review, 94(4):991-1013, 2004.
  3. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosse- lut, A., Brunskill, E., Brynjolfsson, E., Buch, S., Card, D., Castellon, R., Chatterji, N., Chen, A., Creel, K., Davis, J. Q., Demszky, D., Donahue, C., Doumbouya, M., Durmus, E., Ermon, S., Etchemendy, J., Ethayarajh, K., Fei-Fei, L., Finn, C., Gale, T., Gillespie, L., Goel, K., Goodman, N., Grossman, S., Guha, N., Hashimoto, T., Henderson, P., Hewitt, J., Ho, D. E., Hong, J., Hsu, K., Huang, J., Icard, T., Jain, S., Jurafsky, D., Kalluri, P., Karamcheti, S., Keeling, G., Khani, F., Khattab, O., Koh, P. W., Krass, M., Krishna, R., Kuditipudi, R., Kumar, A., Ladhak, F., Lee, M., Lee, T., Leskovec, J., Levent, I., Li, X. L., Li, X., Ma, T., Malik, A., Manning, C. D., Mirchan- dani, S., Mitchell, E., Munyikwa, Z., Nair, S., Narayan, A., Narayanan, D., Newman, B., Nie, A., Niebles, J. C., Nilforoshan, H., Nyarko, J., Ogut, G., Orr, L., Papadim- itriou, I., Park, J. S., Piech, C., Portelance, E., Potts, C., Raghunathan, A., Reich, R., Ren, H., Rong, F., Roohani, Y., Ruiz, C., Ryan, J., Ré, C., Sadigh, D., Sagawa, S., San- thanam, K., Shih, A., Srinivasan, K., Tamkin, A., Taori, R., Thomas, A. W., Tramèr, F., Wang, R. E., Wang, W., Wu, B., Wu, J., Wu, Y., Xie, S. M., Yasunaga, M., You, J., Zaharia, M., Zhang, M., Zhang, T., Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Zheng, L., Zhou, K., and Liang, P. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models, 2022b. Buolamwini, J. and Gebru, T. Gender shades: Intersec- tional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classi- fication. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency, pp. 77-91. PMLR, 2018.
  4. Crenshaw, K. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doc- trine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In Feminist legal theories, pp. 23-51. Routledge, 2013.
  5. Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J., Russell, C., and Silva, R. Counter- factual fairness. Advances in neural information process- ing systems, 30, 2017.
  6. Liao, T., Taori, R., Raji, I. D., and Schmidt, L. Are we learning yet? a meta review of evaluation failures across machine learning. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural In- formation Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2), 2021.
  7. Metaxa, D., Park, J. S., Robertson, R. E., Karahalios, K., Wilson, C., Hancock, J., Sandvig, C., et al. Auditing algo- rithms: Understanding algorithmic systems from the out- side in. Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction, 14(4):272-344, 2021.
  8. Ransbotham, S., Kiron, D., Gerbert, P., and Reeves, M. Re- shaping business with artificial intelligence: Closing the gap between ambition and action. MIT Sloan Manage- ment Review, 59(1), 2017.
  9. Skeem, J. L. and Lowenkamp, C. T. Risk, race, and recidi- vism: Predictive bias and disparate impact. Criminology, 54(4):680-712, 2016.
  10. Starke, C., Baleis, J., Keller, B., and Marcinkowski, F. Fair- ness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A sys- tematic review of the empirical literature. Big Data & Society, 9(2):20539517221115189, 2022.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tamkin, A., Askell, A., Lovitt, L., Durmus, E., Joseph, N., Kravec, S., Nguyen, K., Kaplan, J., & Ganguli, D.
Affiliations
Anthropic (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4389471473
Cited by
11
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
Keywords
algorithmic discrimination, language models, automated decision-making, prompt engineering, demographic bias, bias mitigation

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