Search

Abstract Autoregressive language models, which use deep learning to produce human-like texts, have surged in prevalence. Despite advances in these models, concerns arise about their equity across diverse populations. While AI fairness is discussed widely, metrics to measure equity in dialogue systems are lacking. This paper presents a framework, rooted in deliberative democracy and science communication studies, to evaluate equity in human–AI communication. Using it, we conducted an algorithm auditing study to examine how GPT-3 responded to different populations who vary in sociodemographic backgrounds and viewpoints on crucial science and social issues: climate change and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. We analyzed 20,000 dialogues with 3290 participants differing in gender, race, education, and opinions. We found a substantively worse user experience among the opinion minority groups (e.g., climate deniers, racists) and the education minority groups; however, these groups changed attitudes toward supporting BLM and climate change efforts much more compared to other social groups after the chat. GPT-3 used more negative expressions when responding to the education and opinion minority groups. We discuss the social-technological implications of our findings for a conversational AI system that centralizes diversity, equity, and inclusion.

To foster the responsible development and governance of CRISPR, it is important to understand how agricultural communities perceive and discuss this technology. This study conducted a content analysis of 529 articles from 53 diverse agricultural news publications across sectors and U.S. regions between 2012 and 2022. We analyzed how CRISPR technology is depicted in terms of risk, benefit, social/policy context, quoted experts, and the mentioning of other biotechnologies. Our findings show that from the time that CRISPR was developed for agriculture over a decade ago, agricultural news has consistently reflected a pro-innovation stance, frequently describing its benefits as well as advantages over longerstanding biotechnologies. Industry representatives were quoted most frequently, followed by university scientists and political representatives, while producers and non-governmental groups were quoted least frequently. Technology-related risks (off-target effects, financial risks) were notably lacking, but CRISPR's social context was covered more extensively, including uncertainties in regulation and consumer acceptance. We discussed the implications for agricultural news professionals, communicators, and future researchers, emphasizing the importance of fostering a more balanced discourse and ensuring informed decision-making within the agricultural sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]