arXiv · 2511.06676
How AI Fails: An Interactive Pedagogical Tool for Demonstrating Dialectal Bias in Automated Toxicity Models
Abstract
Now that AI-driven moderation has become pervasive in everyday life, we often hear claims that "the AI is biased". While this is often said jokingly, the light-hearted remark reflects a deeper concern. How can we be certain that an online post flagged as "inappropriate" was not simply the victim of a biased algorithm? This paper investigates this problem using a dual approach. First, I conduct a quantitative benchmark of a widely used toxicity model (unitary/toxic-bert) to measure performance disparity between text in African-American English (AAE) and Standard American English (SAE). The benchmark reveals a clear, systematic bias: on average, the model scores AAE text as 1.8 times more toxic and 8.8 times higher for "identity hate". Second, I introduce an interactive pedagogical tool that makes these abstract biases tangible. The tool's core mechanic, a user-controlled "sensitivity threshold," demonstrates that the biased score itself is not the only harm; instead, the more-concerning harm is the human-set, seemingly neutral policy that ultimately operationalises discrimination. This work provides both statistical evidence of disparate impact and a public-facing tool designed to foster critical AI literacy.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Subhojit Ghimire. 2025-11-10. How AI Fails: An Interactive Pedagogical Tool for Demonstrating Dialectal Bias in Automated Toxicity Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.06676
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.