Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Artificial Intelligence

Sexism and Shopping: Female Players Get Most of the Odd Questions at the U.S. Open

One of the questions Elina Svitolina fielded after a recent victory at the U.S. Open: “Was there anything in particular you bought when you went shopping?”Credit...Matthew Stockman/Getty Images

The tennis finals of the United States Open are Saturday for the women and Sunday for the men. On the court, except for the number of sets, they all face the same rules. When they walk off the court, though, the game changes.

Two years ago, Serena Williams was asked why she wasn’t smiling — a question some felt no one would have asked a man. After the Australian Open in 2012, another player was asked, “After practice, can you put tennis a little bit behind you and have dinner, shopping, have a little bit of fun?” It is not hard to guess the gender of that player.

Liye Fu, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil and Lillian Lee, three computer scientists at Cornell, built algorithms to find out whether such examples were isolated incidents or reflective of a broader pattern. These algorithms processed the language in tens of thousands of questions spanning thousands of matches over 15 years and looked for how their content differed between genders.

Their work is interesting even if you have no interest in tennis, and not just because it reveals the subtle and persistent gender bias in our society. Understanding how they accomplished this feat provides a valuable window into how algorithms operate. How can algorithms tread into language — a quintessentially human activity — and uncover patterns that some may have suspected, but had no clear way of demonstrating?

First, here’s what they reported finding last year: The question about Ms. Williams’s smiling was far from an exception. Across all the categories analyzed and all the questions, the algorithm revealed that female players were much more likely to be asked questions unrelated to tennis. Once we remove the more standard, rote (or “typical”) questions, roughly 70 percent of the questions unrelated to tennis were posed to female players.

(This point is driven home in a popular parody video of male athletes being asked nonsports questions.)

We asked the researchers to apply their algorithm to this year’s Open. Here are some typical questions or rote questions asked of male tennis players:

“What would you expect from a match like that?”

“How does it feel to be back in the second week of the U.S. Open?”

Here are some typical or rote questions asked of female players:

“What do you think of the match that’s coming up?”

“You have been through injuries and you have had some tough matches here, but what makes it special to play here at the U.S. Open?”

The researchers’ algorithm also identifies the most atypical, even bizarre questions asked of the athletes.

Asked of men:

“There were some moments you were doubting yourself or not?”

“What does it mean to you if you are indeed an inspiration for people who are not tall?”

Asked of women:

“Do you know of players who get their nails done on-site?”

“Was there anything in particular you bought when you went shopping?”

How did an algorithm “know” to single out these questions? How did it decide what was and what was not related to tennis?

To understand this, it helps to know why algorithms are useful for processing language. The first task in this example is to find individual topics or words that we conjecture are unrelated to tennis. Imagine doing that without a computer. Exactly because language is rich, questions can differ in a dizzying array of ways. Searching with our own eyes through all these possibilities could take impossibly long. An algorithm, on the other hand, could try thousands of such paths.

This by itself is a remarkable skill. But it still needs guidance on what paths to try. We know broadly what we would like it to do — look for any differences in the tennis-relatedness of questions. Yet how would the algorithm know which combinations of words are related to tennis?

Answering this question is what makes this particular paper brilliant. The Cornell researchers understood that they could train the algorithm on another set of data. We not only have the postgame language, but also the in-game commentator language. This language provides a rough guide for what words and language involve tennis.

An algorithm trained on this data can then be applied to the postgame questions. It can infer “tennis-relatedness” by looking at how a question’s words and linguistic structures differ from those used during in-game commentary.

Doing this produces a clear pattern of gender bias. Even though the algorithm is blinded to players’ gender, its output can be compared across genders. To remove the fairly straightforward questions, they additionally categorized the typicality of questions so as to focus on the atypical ones. The researchers’ job is now easy: to simply compare tennis-relatedness of questions asked of male vs. female players.

A clear pattern of gender bias emerges: The questions unrelated to tennis were lobbed disproportionately at women.

But the algorithm did not discover these biases on its own. This paper is cutting-edge research exactly because it required a spark of human intelligence. This was not a rote activity. It required months of work by some of the best researchers in the field of natural language processing.

We risk misleading ourselves when we attribute breakthroughs such as this to machine intelligence. Maybe in the future, machines will have insights of their own, and we would be wise to recognize that as a possibility. After all, some visual and audio processing tasks are already fully automated.

In other areas, we recognize that technologies — however revolutionary — increase the premium on creativity and intelligence. Breakthroughs have value only when cleverly deployed by humans. Artificial intelligence is no different. It raises, not lowers, the value of human intelligence and creativity. That fact can be obscured when we anthropomorphize and attribute sentience to a tool.

In the 15th century, the introduction of linear perspective revolutionized art. A masterpiece like “The School of Athens” simply could not exist without it. When we anthropomorphize algorithms and imagine that breakthroughs in artificial intelligence come directly from algorithms, it is analogous to attributing this masterpiece of art to “Linear Perspective” rather than to Raphael.

Sendhil Mullainathan is a professor of economics at Harvard. Follow him on Twitter at @m_sendhil.

The Upshot provides news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Sign up for our newsletter.

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT