Researchers have demonstrated that Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems perform differently across demographic groups. In this work, we examined how subtitle errors affect evaluations of speakers and their content using a preregistered online experiment (N=207, US-based crowdworkers). Participants watched speakers with various accents deliver a talk in which the subtitles were accurate or error-prone. Our results indicate that error-prone subtitles consistently reduce both speaker and content evaluations for all speakers. We did not see disparate impact between the accent groups, controlling for subtitle quality. Taken together, though, the findings of this short paper imply that speakers with accents for which ASR systems perform poorly are likely to be further penalized by viewers with lower evaluations.

Given large language models’ (LLMs) increasing integration into workplace software, it is important to examine how biases in the models may impact workers. For example, stylistic biases in the language suggested by LLMs may cause feelings of alienation and result in increased labor for individuals or groups whose style does not match. We examine how such writer-style bias impacts inclusion, control, and ownership over the work when co-writing with LLMs. In an online experiment, participants wrote hypothetical job promotion requests using either hesitant or self-assured auto-complete suggestions from an LLM and reported their subsequent perceptions. We found that the style of the AI model did not impact perceived inclusion. However, individuals with higher perceived inclusion did perceive greater agency and ownership, an effect more strongly impacting participants of minoritized genders. Feelings of inclusion mitigated a loss of control and agency when accepting more AI suggestions.