LLMs are being used everywhere from research to helping draft laws. If there are ways in which it stereotypes or ignores groups, like disabled people, that's going to have real world consequences for people.
Of course, and while we can both agree that typification should be minimized, sociologically, is it ever possible to eliminate it? If so, how? And what meaning would identity groups have if typification was absent?
> what meaning would identity groups have if typification was absent?
I think it's very clear that identity groups would then have no meaning. It's a social construct, and we as a society should be able to dissolve it, just like we decided that it isn't useful to talk about separate "human races" any more.
I for one can imagine a world where everyone is only judged as an individual without any group identity.
The summary explains why "flattening identity groups" is problematic for research:
> In many settings, researchers seek to distribute their surveys to a sample of participants that are representative of the underlying human population of interest. This means in order to be a suitable replacement, LLMs will need to be able to capture the influence of positionality (i.e., relevance of social identities like gender and race).
Separately, "differences" are not "either/or". Differences can be appreciated, understood and discussed while also celebrating shared humanity. That's the more evolved and nuanced take.
LLMs are being used everywhere from research to helping draft laws. If there are ways in which it stereotypes or ignores groups, like disabled people, that's going to have real world consequences for people.