What Do People Think about Sentient AI?

With rapid advances in machine learning, many people in the field have been discussing the rise of digital minds and the possibility of artificial sentience. Future developments in AI capabilities and safety will depend on public opinion and human-AI interaction. To begin to fill this research gap, we present the first nationally representative survey data on the topic of sentient AI: initial results from the Artificial Intelligence, Morality, and Sentience (AIMS) survey, a preregistered and longitudinal study of U.S. public opinion that began in 2021. Across one wave of data collection in 2021 and two in 2023 (total \textit{N} = 3,500), we found mind perception and moral concern for AI well-being in 2021 were higher than predicted and significantly increased in 2023: for example, 71\% agree sentient AI deserve to be treated with respect, and 38\% support legal rights. People have become more threatened by AI, and there is widespread opposition to new technologies: 63\% support a ban on smarter-than-human AI, and 69\% support a ban on sentient AI. Expected timelines are surprisingly short and shortening with a median forecast of sentient AI in only five years and artificial general intelligence in only two years. We argue that, whether or not AIs become sentient, the discussion itself may overhaul human-computer interaction and shape the future trajectory of AI technologies, including existential risks and opportunities.

The Human Factor in AI Red Teaming: Perspectives from Social and Collaborative Computing

Rapid progress in general-purpose AI has sparked significant interest in "red teaming," a practice of adversarial testing originating in military and cybersecurity applications. AI red teaming raises many questions about the human factor, such as how red teamers are selected, biases and blindspots in how tests are conducted, and harmful content's psychological effects on red teamers. A growing body of HCI and CSCW literature examines related practices-including data labeling, content moderation, and algorithmic auditing. However, few, if any, have investigated red teaming itself. This workshop seeks to consider the conceptual and empirical challenges associated with this practice, often rendered opaque by non-disclosure agreements. Future studies may explore topics ranging from fairness to mental health and other areas of potential harm. We aim to facilitate a community of researchers and practitioners who can begin to meet these challenges with creativity, innovation, and thoughtful reflection.

Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation

Bias benchmarks are a popular method for studying the negative impacts of bias in LLMs, yet there has been little empirical investigation of whether these benchmarks are actually indicative of how real world harm may manifest in the real world. In this work, we study the correspondence between such decontextualized "trick tests" and evaluations that are more grounded in Realistic Use and Tangible {Effects (i.e. RUTEd evaluations). We explore this correlation in the context of gender-occupation bias--a popular genre of bias evaluation. We compare three de-contextualized evaluations adapted from the current literature to three analogous RUTEd evaluations applied to long-form content generation. We conduct each evaluation for seven instruction-tuned LLMs. For the RUTEd evaluations, we conduct repeated trials of three text generation tasks: children's bedtime stories, user personas, and English language learning exercises. We found no correspondence between trick tests and RUTEd evaluations. Specifically, selecting the least biased model based on the de-contextualized results coincides with selecting the model with the best performance on RUTEd evaluations only as often as random chance. We conclude that evaluations that are not based in realistic use are likely insufficient to mitigate and assess bias and real-world harms.

Causal Context Connects Counterfactual Fairness to Robust Prediction and Group Fairness

Counterfactual fairness requires that a person would have been classified in the same way by an AI or other algorithmic system if they had a different protected class, such as a different race or gender. This is an intuitive standard, as reflected in the U.S. legal system, but its use is limited because counterfactuals cannot be directly observed in real-world data. On the other hand, group fairness metrics (e.g., demographic parity or equalized odds) are less intuitive but more readily observed. In this paper, we use $\textit{causal context}$ to bridge the gaps between counterfactual fairness, robust prediction, and group fairness. First, we motivate counterfactual fairness by showing that there is not necessarily a fundamental trade-off between fairness and accuracy because, under plausible conditions, the counterfactually fair predictor is in fact accuracy-optimal in an unbiased target distribution. Second, we develop a correspondence between the causal graph of the data-generating process and which, if any, group fairness metrics are equivalent to counterfactual fairness. Third, we show that in three common fairness contexts$\unicode{x2013}$measurement error, selection on label, and selection on predictors$\unicode{x2013}$counterfactual fairness is equivalent to demographic parity, equalized odds, and calibration, respectively. Counterfactual fairness can sometimes be tested by measuring relatively simple group fairness metrics.