Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2604.09627

Hidden Signals in Language: Inferring Sensitive Attributes from Reddit Comments Using Machine Learning

Abstract

Sensitive attributes are legally protected characteristics that should not be used to discriminate. Careful steps have been taken to minimize the risk of human bias regarding these fields, such as race and age. Large language models (LLMs) are similarly trained not to attempt to infer these aspects. However, just because they shouldn't, doesn't mean they don't. Using chat-like text fragments from authors tagged with sensitive attributes (e.g., MBTI personality, country of origin, gender), a model can often classify these attributes better than a naive guess, with results depending on the combination of subject matter and attribute. The text data from these comments is converted into numerical representations using embedding models, which are then used to train relatively simple classifiers such as logistic regression and decision trees. This study's results show that even these lightweight models can detect statistically significant signals associated with sensitive attributes in user-generated text. The results show that demographic traits such as gender and age are more readily predictable, whereas personality traits are expressed more subtly and depend more heavily on context. Predictive performance varies across online Reddit communities, with some subreddits consistently revealing attributes, while others show high variability depending on the trait being analyzed. These findings indicate that language contains latent identity signals that users may not intend to disclose but are nevertheless detectable through computational methods, and imply that more complex language models may have an inherent, greater capacity to infer sensitive attributes. This raises important concerns about privacy, bias, and the potential misuse of inferred personal information in AI systems. We call for increased transparency, stronger safeguards, and careful policy consideration for future LLMs.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anay Agarwalla, Simeon Sayer. 2026-03-19. Hidden Signals in Language: Inferring Sensitive Attributes from Reddit Comments Using Machine Learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09627

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

The Cross-Section of Stock Returns and AI Exposure

We study 380 trillion tokens of realized AI consumption across more than four hundred LLMs. We build a high-frequency AI factor and show that a long-short strategy based on firms' AI exposure earns significantly positive returns. The average strategy return is larger based on intensive, frontier-oriented AI consumption but smaller based on casual or open-weight usage. Internationally, the return spread is significant in developed countries but insignificant in emerging markets. Examining occupational AI exposure, we find more positive exposure in occupations intensive in nonroutine interactive tasks and more negative exposure in those intensive in nonroutine analytical tasks.

cs.CY↗

What fidelity metrics miss: a structural check on synthetic educational data

Secondary use of educational records is increasingly mediated by platforms that share a differentially private synthetic version of a dataset and validate specific findings against the real data on request. The synthetic version is evaluated by comparing summary statistics of each variable, yet reported confirmation rates suggest that such comparisons do not predict which findings survive. We propose a structural check: the number of connected components of a weekly proximity graph over learners, tracked across a term. Across four annual cohorts of lower-secondary study-habit logs, the synthetic versions reproduced the level of this quantity and the shape of the weekly partition, but its variation across the term was between 2.6 and 4.9 times smaller than in the real data at a common working point, without exception, and those changes fell in different weeks: the synthetic cohorts single out the term's examination weeks and the real cohorts do not. We also show that a routine rule for setting the graph threshold makes naive comparisons between two datasets invalid, and illustrate this with an error of our own. The real curves are also distinguishable from marginal-preserving surrogates of themselves in all four cohorts, where three of the four synthetic ones are not, a comparison that needs no real data; these differences trace to what the generator was given.

cs.CY↗

AI-Moderated Interviews for Market Research and Digital Twins Calibration

AI-moderated interviews are emerging as a scalable market-research method for generating consumer insights and building consumer "digital twins." Yet it remains unclear whether they match human-moderated interviews or improve on simpler, static data collection methods. In a pre-registered, between-subjects study (N = 317) with three industry partners, we compare AI-moderated (N = 139), human-moderated (N = 24), and static interviews (N = 154). AI moderation matches human moderation in depth, covers more themes, and, holding budget constant, recovers significantly more customer needs than human moderation or static interviews. However, participants sound more emotionally engaged when speaking to a live human. We then create digital twins using interview data and evaluate each twin against the participant's own held-out responses to six real-world marketing stimuli. We find that digital twins created from AI-moderated interviews predict consumer responses better than demographics-only personas. However, the additional richness from AI moderation does not translate into better quantitative predictions compared to static interviews. By analyzing open-ended thoughts generated from humans versus their twins, we find that prediction errors are connected both to differences in (self-reported) thinking styles between twins and humans, and to gaps between training and validation data (i.e., asking questions that are too far out of distribution).

cs.CY↗