Reproducing or challenging dominant constructions of sexuality?: An exploratory study of AI-generated images representing disability and sexuality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With AI’s integration into creative domains, concerns about reinforcing biases, particularly related to disability and sexuality, have arisen. This study examined if AI perpetuates existing stereotypes or fosters more nuanced representations that challenge societal perceptions. Historically, media narratives have often desexualized or infantilized disabled individuals, contributing to a narrow and stigmatized view of disability. However, advocacy by disabled activists and scholars has been gradually transforming this narrative towards inclusivity. Our exploratory analysis involved collecting images from leading AI platforms using the prompt “a couple with a disability kissing,” revealing the underlying biases of AI in portraying disabled individuals. We found that AI-generated images typically reinforced heteronormative and racially homogenous narratives, with a significant underrepresentation of 2SLGBTQ+ and non-white individuals. We also noted a distinction between the portrayal of visible versus invisible disabilities, reflecting a limited understanding of disability. The research underscores the need for inclusive AI practices and active engagement with disabled communities to ensure authentic and respectful representations. As AI technology continues to evolve, it is crucial to ensure it complements rather than replaces the voices and visions of disabled individuals. This study provides some preliminary insights regarding the representation of disability and sexuality, highlighting the importance of ethical considerations and the inclusion of more diverse representations in AI-generated content.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".