Joel Mire

Jordan Taylor, Joel Mire, Alicia DeVrio et al. · cmu

Art-making is a collective social activity through which queer people engage in political resistance, develop identities, archive queer memory, and form community. However, in recent years, generative AI has disrupted queer artistic communities. Through 15 semi-structured interviews, we examine how queer artists are making sense of the encroachment of GenAI into their art worlds. Our findings surface significant tensions between the relationality of our participants' queer art practices and the perceived anti-relationality of GenAI development and use. We detail how our participants refuse and resist GenAI use and development in response and highlight the limited role our participants saw for GenAI within art-making, such as the queer aesthetic potential of surreal image models. Drawing on queer theory, we discuss how CSCW researchers might support queer artists by refusing dominant AI imaginaries and supporting queer world-building.

Joel Mire, Zubin Trivadi Aysola, Daniel Chechelnitsky et al. · allen-ai, cmu

Preference alignment via reward models helps build safe, helpful, and reliable large language models (LLMs). However, subjectivity in preference judgments and the lack of representative sampling in preference data collection can introduce new biases, hindering reward models' fairness and equity. In this work, we introduce a framework for evaluating dialect biases in reward models and conduct a case study on biases against African American Language (AAL) through several experiments comparing reward model preferences and behavior on paired White Mainstream English (WME) and both machine-translated and human-written AAL corpora. We show that reward models are less aligned with human preferences when processing AAL texts vs. WME ones (-4\% accuracy on average), frequently disprefer AAL-aligned texts vs. WME-aligned ones, and steer conversations toward WME, even when prompted with AAL texts. Our findings provide a targeted analysis of anti-AAL biases at a relatively understudied stage in LLM development, highlighting representational harms and ethical questions about the desired behavior of LLMs concerning AAL.

Jordan Taylor, Joel Mire, Franchesca Spektor et al. · allen-ai, cmu

Queer people are often discussed as targets of bias, harm, or discrimination in research on generative AI. However, the specific ways that queer people engage with generative AI, and thus possible uses that support queer people, have yet to be explored. We conducted a workshop study with 13 queer artists, during which we gave participants access to GPT-4 and DALL-E 3 and facilitated group sensemaking activities. We found our participants struggled to use these models due to various normative values embedded in their designs, such as hyper-positivity and anti-sexuality. We describe various strategies our participants developed to overcome these models' limitations and how, nevertheless, our participants found value in these highly-normative technologies. Drawing on queer feminist theory, we discuss implications for the conceptualization of "state-of-the-art" models and consider how FAccT researchers might support queer alternatives.

Jing-Jing Li, Joel Mire, Eve Fleisig et al.

Current AI safety frameworks, which often treat harmfulness as binary, lack the flexibility to handle borderline cases where humans meaningfully disagree. To build more pluralistic systems, it is essential to move beyond consensus and instead understand where and why disagreements arise. We introduce PluriHarms, a benchmark designed to systematically study human harm judgments across two key dimensions -- the harm axis (benign to harmful) and the agreement axis (agreement to disagreement). Our scalable framework generates prompts that capture diverse AI harms and human values while targeting cases with high disagreement rates, validated by human data. The benchmark includes 150 prompts with 15,000 ratings from 100 human annotators, enriched with demographic and psychological traits and prompt-level features of harmful actions, effects, and values. Our analyses show that prompts that relate to imminent risks and tangible harms amplify perceived harmfulness, while annotator traits (e.g., toxicity experience, education) and their interactions with prompt content explain systematic disagreement. We benchmark AI safety models and alignment methods on PluriHarms, finding that while personalization significantly improves prediction of human harm judgments, considerable room remains for future progress. By explicitly targeting value diversity and disagreement, our work provides a principled benchmark for moving beyond "one-size-fits-all" safety toward pluralistically safe AI.