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

In this paper, we motivate the need for a participatory speech dataset creation framework through a case study of the LGBTQIA+, or queer, community - a community with documented concerns about AI and reported harms, including attempts to develop 'gaydar' technologies that purportedly identify individuals as queer. We review common speech data collection practices, why these methods may be unsuitable for engaging with queer speakers, and discuss previous efforts in participatory AI with queer community engagement, as well as participatory endeavours specific to speech data collection for other marginalized communities. From this review, we develop a conceptual framework for participatory speech data curation by, for, and with marginalized communities drawing on insights from co-design and knowledge sharing. We propose a framework comprising overlapping and two-way processes of defining a community, project formulation, modes of participation, and personal autonomy.

In this paper, we examine speech datasets for their inclusion of LGBTQIA+, or queer, voices and provide a taxonomy of tensions to better understand why there is a lack of such voices in current speech technology datasets. Through an audit of six diverse speech datasets, we find that measurable queer representation is low (0-1.4% of speakers) - insufficient for robust disparity measurement. We take this community as a case study to consider what challenges and tensions are associated with collecting speech data from marginalized communities. For comparison, we audit an additional two datasets from the speech sciences that were created by, for, and with the queer community. We note that many customs in speech dataset collection efforts in AI and speech technology research may conflict with values emphasized in participatory approaches with marginalized communities, and provide a taxonomy describing these tensions.

AI risk assessment is the primary tool for identifying harms caused by AI systems. These include intersectional harms, which arise from the interaction between identity categories (e.g., class and skin tone) and which do not occur, or occur differently, when those categories are considered separately. Yet existing AI risk assessments are still built around isolated identity categories, and when intersections are considered, they focus almost exclusively on race and gender. Drawing on a large-scale analysis of documented AI incidents, we show that AI harms do not occur one identity category at a time. Using a structured rubric applied with a Large Language Model (LLM), we analyze 5,300 reports from 1,200 documented incidents in the AI Incident Database, the most curated source of incident data. From these reports, we identify 1,513 harmed subjects and their associated identity categories, achieving 98% accuracy. At the level of individual categories, we find that age and political identity appear in documented AI harms at rates comparable to race and gender. At the level of intersecting categories, harm is amplified up to three times at specific intersections: adolescent girls, lower-class people of color, and upper-class political elites. We argue that intersectionality should be a core component of AI risk assessment to more accurately capture how harms are produced and distributed across social groups.