Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

"Cold, Calculated, and Condescending": How AI Identifies and Explains Ableism Compared to Disabled People

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.03448 v3 pith:TS2ZMNQZ submitted 2024-10-04 cs.HC cs.AI

"Cold, Calculated, and Condescending": How AI Identifies and Explains Ableism Compared to Disabled People

classification cs.HC cs.AI
keywords ableismmodelstoxicityableistcompareddisabledexplainexplanations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

People with disabilities (PwD) regularly encounter ableist hate and microaggressions online. These spaces are generally moderated by machine learning models, but little is known about how effectively AI models identify ableist speech and how well their judgments align with PwD. To investigate this, we curated a first-of-its-kind dataset of 200 social media comments targeted towards PwD, and prompted state-of-the art AI models (i.e., Toxicity Classifiers, LLMs) to score toxicity and ableism for each comment, and explain their reasoning. Then, we recruited 190 participants to similarly rate and explain the harm, and evaluate LLM explanations. Our mixed-methods analysis highlighted a major disconnect: AI underestimated toxicity compared to PwD ratings, while its ableism assessments were sporadic and varied. Although LLMs identified some biases, its explanations were flawed--they lacked nuance, made incorrect assumptions, and appeared judgmental instead of educational. Going forward, we discuss challenges and opportunities in designing moderation systems for ableism, and advocate for the involvement of intersectional disabled perspectives in AI.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Identifying Implicit Bias in LLM-based Chat AI Toward People with Intellectual Disabilities

    cs.CY 2026-06 conditional novelty 5.0

    Across 25,000 stories from five LLMs, an LLM judge rated stories mentioning intellectual disabilities as more infantile, paternalistic, dependent, and inspirational than stories without the label.