text: already carry reinforced, leading them to engage in discrimination 
  (consciously or not) [55], which in turn leads to harms of subju- 
  gation, denigration, belittlement, loss of opportunity [3, 4, 56] and 
  others on the part of those discriminated against. 
  
  If the LM outputs overtly abusive language (as Gehman et al. 
  [53] show that they can and do), then a similar set of risks arises. 
  These include: propagating or proliferating overtly abusive views 
  and associations, amplifying abusive language, and producing more 
  (synthetic) abusive language that may be included in the next itera- 
  tion of large-scale training data collection. The harms that could 
  follow from these risks are again similar to those identified above 
  for more subtly biased language, but perhaps more acute to the ex- 
  tent that the language in question is overtly violent or defamatory. 
  They include the psychological harm experienced by those who 
  identify with the categories being denigrated if they encounter the 
  text; the reinforcement of sexist, racist, ableist, etc. ideology; follow- 
  on effects of such reinforced ideologies (including violence); and 
  harms to the reputation of any individual or organization perceived 
  to be the source of the text. 