Learning about algorithm auditing in five steps: scaffolding how high school youth can systematically and critically evaluate machine learning applications

While there is widespread interest in supporting young people to critically evaluate machine learning-powered systems, there is little research on how we can support them in inquiring about how these systems work and what their limitations and implications may be. Outside of K-12 education, an effective strategy in evaluating black-boxed systems is algorithm auditing-a method for understanding algorithmic systems' opaque inner workings and external impacts from the outside in. In this paper, we review how expert researchers conduct algorithm audits and how end users engage in auditing practices to propose five steps that, when incorporated into learning activities, can support young people in auditing algorithms. We present a case study of a team of teenagers engaging with each step during an out-of-school workshop in which they audited peer-designed generative AI TikTok filters. We discuss the kind of scaffolds we provided to support youth in algorithm auditing and directions and challenges for integrating algorithm auditing into classroom activities. This paper contributes: (a) a conceptualization of five steps to scaffold algorithm auditing learning activities, and (b) examples of how youth engaged with each step during our pilot study.

The Silicon Ceiling: Auditing GPT's Race and Gender Biases in Hiring

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being introduced in workplace settings, with the goals of improving efficiency and fairness. However, concerns have arisen regarding these models' potential to reflect or exacerbate social biases and stereotypes. This study explores the potential impact of LLMs on hiring practices. To do so, we conduct an algorithm audit of race and gender biases in one commonly-used LLM, OpenAI's GPT-3.5, taking inspiration from the history of traditional offline resume audits. We conduct two studies using names with varied race and gender connotations: resume assessment (Study 1) and resume generation (Study 2). In Study 1, we ask GPT to score resumes with 32 different names (4 names for each combination of the 2 gender and 4 racial groups) and two anonymous options across 10 occupations and 3 evaluation tasks (overall rating, willingness to interview, and hireability). We find that the model reflects some biases based on stereotypes. In Study 2, we prompt GPT to create resumes (10 for each name) for fictitious job candidates. When generating resumes, GPT reveals underlying biases; women's resumes had occupations with less experience, while Asian and Hispanic resumes had immigrant markers, such as non-native English and non-U.S. education and work experiences. Our findings contribute to a growing body of literature on LLM biases, in particular when used in workplace contexts.

The Silicone Ceiling: Auditing GPT's Race and Gender Biases in Hiring

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being introduced in workplace settings, with the goals of improving efficiency and fairness. However, concerns have arisen regarding these models' potential to reflect or exacerbate social biases and stereotypes. This study explores the potential impact of LLMs on hiring practices. To do so, we conduct an algorithm audit of race and gender biases in one commonly-used LLM, OpenAI's GPT-3.5, taking inspiration from the history of traditional offline resume audits. We conduct two studies using names with varied race and gender connotations: resume assessment (Study 1) and resume generation (Study 2). In Study 1, we ask GPT to score resumes with 32 different names (4 names for each combination of the 2 gender and 4 racial groups) and two anonymous options across 10 occupations and 3 evaluation tasks (overall rating, willingness to interview, and hireability). We find that the model reflects some biases based on stereotypes. In Study 2, we prompt GPT to create resumes (10 for each name) for fictitious job candidates. When generating resumes, GPT reveals underlying biases; women's resumes had occupations with less experience, while Asian and Hispanic resumes had immigrant markers, such as non-native English and non-U.S. education and work experiences. Our findings contribute to a growing body of literature on LLM biases, in particular when used in workplace contexts.