arXiv subjects

Organizers of QueerInAI

Publications and source records attributed to Organizers of QueerInAI.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Queering the Audits: Community-Based Auditing of AI Harms to Queer Communities

AI systems embed majority-group defaults into training data, evaluation metrics, and category definitions, producing documented harms for queer communities including erasure, misclassification, and discrimination. Standard technical audits often rely on aggregate measures and cannot detect harms that be come visible only through the lived experience of affected communities. We conducted a participatory auditing workshop at EurIPS 2025 where 16 queer community members audited four case studies using the 4Cs harm taxonomy (Content, Conduct, Contact, Contract) applied across the AI lifecycle. Participants used structured worksheets and plenary synthesis to classify harms and trace them to their origins in the development pipeline. Across all four cases, participants traced harms to problem definition and data collection, and they identified contractual structures that extract value from vulnerable populations while providing minimal recourse. These findings illustrate that community-informed auditing surfaces concrete, identity-specific harms that aggregate evaluation methods risk overlooking.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Bound by the Bounty: Collaboratively Shaping Evaluation Processes for Queer AI Harms

Bias evaluation benchmarks and dataset and model documentation have emerged as central processes for assessing the biases and harms of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. However, these auditing processes have been criticized for their failure to integrate the knowledge of marginalized communities and consider the power dynamics between auditors and the communities. Consequently, modes of bias evaluation have been proposed that engage impacted communities in identifying and assessing the harms of AI systems (e.g., bias bounties). Even so, asking what marginalized communities want from such auditing processes has been neglected. In this paper, we ask queer communities for their positions on, and desires from, auditing processes. To this end, we organized a participatory workshop to critique and redesign bias bounties from queer perspectives. We found that when given space, the scope of feedback from workshop participants goes far beyond what bias bounties afford, with participants questioning the ownership, incentives, and efficacy of bounties. We conclude by advocating for community ownership of bounties and complementing bounties with participatory processes (e.g., co-creation).

cs.CY↗