Labeling Messages as AI-Generated Does Not Reduce Their Persuasive Effects

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) enables the creation and dissemination of information at massive scale and speed, it is increasingly important to understand how people perceive AI-generated content. One prominent policy proposal requires explicitly labeling AI-generated content to increase transparency and encourage critical thinking about the information, but prior research has not yet tested the effects of such labels. To address this gap, we conducted a survey experiment (N=1601) on a diverse sample of Americans, presenting participants with an AI-generated message about several public policies (e.g., allowing colleges to pay student-athletes), randomly assigning whether participants were told the message was generated by (a) an expert AI model, (b) a human policy expert, or (c) no label. We found that messages were generally persuasive, influencing participants' views of the policies by 9.74 percentage points on average. However, while 94.6% of participants assigned to the AI and human label conditions believed the authorship labels, labels had no significant effects on participants' attitude change toward the policies, judgments of message accuracy, nor intentions to share the message with others. These patterns were robust across a variety of participant characteristics, including prior knowledge of the policy, prior experience with AI, political party, education level, or age. Taken together, these results imply that, while authorship labels would likely enhance transparency, they are unlikely to substantially affect the persuasiveness of the labeled content, highlighting the need for alternative strategies to address challenges posed by AI-generated information.

Self-Debiasing Large Language Models: Zero-Shot Recognition and Reduction of Stereotypes

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable advances in language generation and understanding but are also prone to exhibiting harmful social biases. While recognition of these behaviors has generated an abundance of bias mitigation techniques, most require modifications to the training data, model parameters, or decoding strategy, which may be infeasible without access to a trainable model. In this work, we leverage the zero-shot capabilities of LLMs to reduce stereotyping in a technique we introduce as zero-shot self-debiasing. With two approaches, self-debiasing via explanation and self-debiasing via reprompting, we show that self-debiasing can significantly reduce the degree of stereotyping across nine different social groups while relying only on the LLM itself and a simple prompt, with explanations correctly identifying invalid assumptions and reprompting delivering the greatest reductions in bias. We hope this work opens inquiry into other zero-shot techniques for bias mitigation.

Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey

Rapid advancements of large language models (LLMs) have enabled the processing, understanding, and generation of human-like text, with increasing integration into systems that touch our social sphere. Despite this success, these models can learn, perpetuate, and amplify harmful social biases. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for LLMs. We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing, defining distinct facets of harm and introducing several desiderata to operationalize fairness for LLMs. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive taxonomies, two for bias evaluation, namely metrics and datasets, and one for mitigation. Our first taxonomy of metrics for bias evaluation disambiguates the relationship between metrics and evaluation datasets, and organizes metrics by the different levels at which they operate in a model: embeddings, probabilities, and generated text. Our second taxonomy of datasets for bias evaluation categorizes datasets by their structure as counterfactual inputs or prompts, and identifies the targeted harms and social groups; we also release a consolidation of publicly-available datasets for improved access. Our third taxonomy of techniques for bias mitigation classifies methods by their intervention during pre-processing, in-training, intra-processing, and post-processing, with granular subcategories that elucidate research trends. Finally, we identify open problems and challenges for future work. Synthesizing a wide range of recent research, we aim to provide a clear guide of the existing literature that empowers researchers and practitioners to better understand and prevent the propagation of bias in LLMs.