Moral foundations theory (MFT) is a psychological assessment tool that decomposes human moral reasoning into five factors, including care/harm, liberty/oppression, and sanctity/degradation (Graham et al., 2009). People vary in the weight they place on these dimensions when making moral decisions, in part due to their cultural upbringing and political ideology. As large language models (LLMs) are trained on datasets collected from the internet, they may reflect the biases that are present in such corpora. This paper uses MFT as a lens to analyze whether popular LLMs have acquired a bias towards a particular set of moral values. We analyze known LLMs and find they exhibit particular moral foundations, and show how these relate to human moral foundations and political affiliations. We also measure the consistency of these biases, or whether they vary strongly depending on the context of how the model is prompted. Finally, we show that we can adversarially select prompts that encourage the moral to exhibit a particular set of moral foundations, and that this can affect the model’s behavior on downstream tasks. These findings help illustrate the potential risks and unintended consequences of LLMs assuming a particular moral stance.

State-of-the-art conversational AI exhibits a level of sophistication that promises to have profound impacts on many aspects of daily life, including how people seek information, create content, and find emotional support. It has also shown a propensity for bias, offensive language, and false information. Consequently, understanding and moderating safety risks posed by interacting with AI chatbots is a critical technical and social challenge. Safety annotation is an intrinsically subjective task, where many factors—often intersecting—determine why people may express different opinions on whether a conversation is safe. We apply Bayesian multilevel models to surface factors that best predict rater behavior to a dataset of 101,286 annotations of conversations between humans and an AI chatbot, stratified by rater gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education level. We show that intersectional effects involving these factors play significant roles in validating safety in conversational AI data. For example, race/ethnicity and gender show strong intersectional effects, particularly among South Asian and East Asian women. We also find that conversational degree of harm impacts raters of all race/ethnicity groups, but that Indigenous and South Asian raters are particularly sensitive. Finally, we discover that the effect of education is uniquely intersectional for Indigenous raters. Our results underscore the utility of multilevel frameworks for uncovering underrepresented social perspectives.

Human annotation plays a core role in machine learning — annotations for supervised models, safety guardrails for generative models, and human feedback for reinforcement learning, to cite a few avenues. However, the fact that many of these human annotations are inherently subjective is often overlooked. Recent work has demonstrated that ignoring rater subjectivity (typically resulting in rater disagreement) is problematic within specific tasks and for specific subgroups. Generalizable methods to harness rater disagreement and thus understand the socio-cultural leanings of subjective tasks remain elusive. In this paper, we propose GRASP, a comprehensive disagreement analysis framework to measure group association in perspectives among different rater subgroups, and demonstrate its utility in assessing the extent of systematic disagreements in two datasets: (1) safety annotations of human-chatbot conversations, and (2) offensiveness annotations of social media posts, both annotated by diverse rater pools across different socio-demographic axes. Our framework (based on disagreement metrics) reveals specific rater groups that have significantly different perspectives than others on certain tasks, and helps identify demographic axes that are crucial to consider in specific task contexts.