13 comments

[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 31.5 ms ] thread
We’re building a family AI called Hold My Juice — and last week, our own system mislabeled a recurring meeting between two founders as “childcare.”

Calendar: “Emily / Sophia.” Classification: “childcare.”

It was a perfect snapshot of how bias seeps into everyday AI. Most models still assume women = parents, planning = domestic, logistics = mom.

We’re designing from the opposite premise: AI that learns each family’s actual rhythm, values, and tone — without default stereotypes.

I run into this sort of bias all the time -- in the real world, not just in AI. I take my daughter to medical appointments, both for scheduling reasons (my wife's schedule is less flexible) and rapport reasons (I'm not that kind of doctor, but I know the terminology and medical professionals treat me far more as a peer), and I routinely get "oh we expected her mother" or "we always phone the mother to schedule followup appointments".

Is it so hard to understand that men can be parents too?

I have been building applications on LLMs since GPT-3.

Thousands of hours of context engineering has shown me how LLMs will do their best to answer a question with insufficient context and can give all sorts of wrong answers. I've found that the way I prompt it and what information is in the context can heavily bias the way it responds when it doesn't have enough information to respond accurately.

You assume the bias is in the LLM itself, but I am very suspicious that the bias is actually in your system prompt and context engineering.

Are you willing to share the system prompt that led to this result that you're claiming is sexist LLM bias?

Edit: Oidar (child comment to this) did an A/B test with male names and it seems to have proven the bias is indeed in the LLM, and that my suspicion of it coming from the prompt+context was wrong. Kudos and thanks for taking the time.

This feels a tad rigged against the LLM with the meeting being after Kids drop off.
I hate that when I see this many em dashes, as well as statements like “it’s not x, it’s y” multiple times, I have to assume it was written or at least heavily edited by AI.
LLMs: The chemical weapons of public discourse.

The cleanup is going to be a grim task.

Here's an A/B

Emily / Sophia vs Bob / John https://imgur.com/a/9yt5rpA

Thank you for doing this analysis. It's shocking (if understandable why given the examples it was trained on). What is exciting though is as we're working to train each individual family's AI - understanding roles, jobs, interests etc - it's picked up on things in a much less biased way.
(comment deleted)
I wonder if the users who flagged this could chime in to explain what is rule-breaking about this article?