GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers

The rapid adoption of generative language models has brought about substantial advancements in digital communication, while simultaneously raising concerns regarding the potential misuse of AI-generated content. Although numerous detection methods have been proposed to differentiate between AI and human-generated content, the fairness and robustness of these detectors remain underexplored. In this study, we evaluate the performance of several widely-used GPT detectors using writing samples from native and non-native English writers. Our findings reveal that these detectors consistently misclassify non-native English writing samples as AI-generated, whereas native writing samples are accurately identified. Furthermore, we demonstrate that simple prompting strategies can not only mitigate this bias but also effectively bypass GPT detectors, suggesting that GPT detectors may unintentionally penalize writers with constrained linguistic expressions. Our results call for a broader conversation about the ethical implications of deploying ChatGPT content detectors and caution against their use in evaluative or educational settings, particularly when they may inadvertently penalize or exclude non-native English speakers from the global discourse.

By Eric Wu, James Zou, Mert Yuksekgonul, Weixin Liang and Yining Mao for arXiv.org on April 18, 2023

Watching the watchers: bias and vulnerability in remote proctoring software

Educators are rapidly switching to remote proctoring and examination software for their testing needs, both due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the expanding virtualization of the education sector. State boards are increasingly utilizing these software for high stakes legal and medical licensing exams. Three key concerns arise with the use of these complex software: exam integrity, exam procedural fairness, and exam-taker security and privacy. We conduct the first technical analysis of each of these concerns through a case study of four primary proctoring suites used in U.S. law school and state attorney licensing exams. We reverse engineer these proctoring suites and find that despite promises of high-security, all their anti-cheating measures can be trivially bypassed and can pose significant user security risks. We evaluate current facial recognition classifiers alongside the classifier used by Examplify, the legal exam proctoring suite with the largest market share, to ascertain their accuracy and determine whether faces with certain skin tones are more readily flagged for cheating. Finally, we offer recommendations to improve the integrity and fairness of the remotely proctored exam experience.

By Avi Ginsberg, Ben Burgess, Edward W. Felten and Shaanan Cohney for arXiv.org on May 6, 2022

What problems are AI-systems even solving? “Apparently, too few people ask that question”

In this interview with Felienne Hermans, Professor Computer Science at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, she discusses the sore lack of divesity in the white male-dominated world of programming, the importance of teaching people how to code and, the problematic uses of AI-systems.

Continue reading “What problems are AI-systems even solving? “Apparently, too few people ask that question””

Dutch Institute for Human Rights: Use of anti-cheating software can be algorithmic discrimination (i.e. racist)

Dutch student Robin Pocornie filed a complaint with Dutch Institute for Human Rights. The surveillance software that her university used, had trouble recognising her as human being because of her skin colour. After a hearing, the Institute has now ruled that Robin has presented enough evidence to assume that she was indeed discriminated against. The ball is now in the court of the VU (her university) to prove that the software treated everybody the same.

Continue reading “Dutch Institute for Human Rights: Use of anti-cheating software can be algorithmic discrimination (i.e. racist)”

Antispieksoftware op de VU discrimineert

Antispieksoftware checkt voorafgaand aan een tentamen of jij wel echt een mens bent. Maar wat als het systeem je niet herkent, omdat je een donkere huidskleur hebt? Dat overkwam student Robin Pocornie, zij stapte naar het College voor de Rechten van de Mens. Samen met Naomi Appelman van het Racism and Technology Centre, die Robin bijstond in haar zaak, vertelt ze erover.

By Naomi Appelman, Natasja Gibbs and Robin Pocornie for NPO Radio 1 on December 12, 2022

Eerste keer vermoeden van algoritmische discriminatie succesvol onderbouwd

Een student is erin geslaagd voldoende feiten aan te dragen voor een vermoeden van algoritmische discriminatie. De vrouw klaagt dat de Vrije Universiteit haar discrimineerde door antispieksoftware in te zetten. Deze software maakt gebruik van gezichtsdetectiealgoritmes. De software detecteerde haar niet als ze moest inloggen voor tentamens. De vrouw vermoedt dat dit komt door haar donkere huidskleur. De universiteit krijgt tien weken de tijd om aan te tonen dat de software niet heeft gediscrimineerd. Dat blijkt uit het tussenoordeel dat het College publiceerde.  

From College voor de Rechten van de Mens on December 9, 2022

Dutch student files complaint with the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights about the use of racist software by her university

During the pandemic, Dutch student Robin Pocornie had to do her exams with a light pointing straight at her face. Her fellow students who were White didn’t have to do that. Her university’s surveillance software discriminated her, and that is why she has filed a complaint (read the full complaint in Dutch) with the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights.

Continue reading “Dutch student files complaint with the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights about the use of racist software by her university”

Student meldt discriminatie met antispieksoftware bij College Rechten van de Mens

Een student van de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) dient een klacht in bij het College voor de Rechten van de Mens (pdf). Bij het gebruik van de antispieksoftware voor tentamens werd ze alleen herkend als ze met een lamp in haar gezicht scheen. De VU had volgens haar vooraf moeten controleren of studenten met een zwarte huidskleur even goed herkend zouden worden als witte studenten.

From NU.nl on July 15, 2022

Student stapt naar College voor de Rechten van de Mens vanwege gebruik racistische software door de VU

Student Robin Pocornie moest tijdens de coronapandemie tentamens maken met een lamp direct op haar gezicht. Haar witte medestudenten hoefden dat niet. De surveillance-software van de VU heeft haar gediscrimineerd, daarom dient ze vandaag een klacht in bij het College voor de Rechten van de Mens.

Continue reading “Student stapt naar College voor de Rechten van de Mens vanwege gebruik racistische software door de VU”

Racist Technology in Action: U.S. universities using race in their risk algorithms as a predictor for student success

An investigation by The Markup in March 2021, revealed that some universities in the U.S. are using a software and risk algorithm that uses the race of student as one of the factors to predict and evaluate how successful a student may be. Several universities have described race as a “high impact predictor”. The investigation found large disparities in how the software treated students of different races, with Black students deemed a four times higher risk than their White peers.

Continue reading “Racist Technology in Action: U.S. universities using race in their risk algorithms as a predictor for student success”

Opinion: Biden must act to get racism out of automated decision-making

Despite Biden’s announced commitment to advancing racial justice, not a single appointee to the task force has focused experience on civil rights and liberties in the development and use of AI. That has to change. Artificial intelligence, invisible but pervasive, affects vast swaths of American society and will affect many more. Biden must ensure that racial equity is prioritized in AI development.

By ReNika Moore for Washington Post on August 9, 2021

Moses Namara

Working to break down the barriers keeping young Black people from careers in AI.

By Abby Ohlheiser for MIT Technology Review on June 30, 2021

Racist Technology in Action: Proctoring software disadvantaging students of colour in the Netherlands

In an opinion piece in Parool, The Racism and Technology Center wrote about how Dutch universities use proctoring software that uses facial recognition technology that systematically disadvantages students of colour (see the English translation of the opinion piece). Earlier the center has written on the racial bias of these systems, leading to black students being excluded from exams or being labeled as frauds because the software did not properly recognise their faces as a face. Despite the clear proof that Procorio disadvantages students of colour, the University of Amsterdam has still used Proctorio extensively in this June’s exam weeks.

Continue reading “Racist Technology in Action: Proctoring software disadvantaging students of colour in the Netherlands”

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑