Scruples: A Corpus of Community Ethical Judgments on 32,000 Real-Life
Anecdotes
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2008.09094v2
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 11:04:10 GMT
- Title: Scruples: A Corpus of Community Ethical Judgments on 32,000 Real-Life
Anecdotes
- Authors: Nicholas Lourie, Ronan Le Bras, Yejin Choi
- Abstract summary: Motivated by descriptive ethics, we investigate a novel, data-driven approach to machine ethics.
We introduce Scruples, the first large-scale dataset with 625,000 ethical judgments over 32,000 real-life anecdotes.
Our dataset presents a major challenge to state-of-the-art neural language models, leaving significant room for improvement.
- Score: 72.64975113835018
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: As AI systems become an increasing part of people's everyday lives, it
becomes ever more important that they understand people's ethical norms.
Motivated by descriptive ethics, a field of study that focuses on people's
descriptive judgments rather than theoretical prescriptions on morality, we
investigate a novel, data-driven approach to machine ethics.
We introduce Scruples, the first large-scale dataset with 625,000 ethical
judgments over 32,000 real-life anecdotes. Each anecdote recounts a complex
ethical situation, often posing moral dilemmas, paired with a distribution of
judgments contributed by the community members. Our dataset presents a major
challenge to state-of-the-art neural language models, leaving significant room
for improvement. However, when presented with simplified moral situations, the
results are considerably more promising, suggesting that neural models can
effectively learn simpler ethical building blocks.
A key take-away of our empirical analysis is that norms are not always
clean-cut; many situations are naturally divisive. We present a new method to
estimate the best possible performance on such tasks with inherently diverse
label distributions, and explore likelihood functions that separate intrinsic
from model uncertainty.
Related papers
- Do Language Models Understand Morality? Towards a Robust Detection of Moral Content [4.096453902709292]
We introduce novel systems that leverage abstract concepts and common-sense knowledge.
By doing so, we aim to develop versatile and robust methods for detecting moral values in real-world scenarios.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-06T15:08:16Z) - Exploring and steering the moral compass of Large Language Models [55.2480439325792]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have become central to advancing automation and decision-making across various sectors.
This study proposes a comprehensive comparative analysis of the most advanced LLMs to assess their moral profiles.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-27T16:49:22Z) - Learning Machine Morality through Experience and Interaction [3.7414804164475983]
Increasing interest in ensuring safety of next-generation Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems calls for novel approaches to embedding morality into autonomous agents.
We argue that more hybrid solutions are needed to create adaptable and robust, yet more controllable and interpretable agents.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-04T11:46:34Z) - Unpacking the Ethical Value Alignment in Big Models [46.560886177083084]
This paper provides an overview of the risks and challenges associated with big models, surveys existing AI ethics guidelines, and examines the ethical implications arising from the limitations of these models.
We introduce a novel conceptual paradigm for aligning the ethical values of big models and discuss promising research directions for alignment criteria, evaluation, and method.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-26T16:45:40Z) - What Makes it Ok to Set a Fire? Iterative Self-distillation of Contexts
and Rationales for Disambiguating Defeasible Social and Moral Situations [48.686872351114964]
Moral or ethical judgments rely heavily on the specific contexts in which they occur.
We introduce defeasible moral reasoning: a task to provide grounded contexts that make an action more or less morally acceptable.
We distill a high-quality dataset of 1.2M entries of contextualizations and rationales for 115K defeasible moral actions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-24T00:51:29Z) - Modeling Moral Choices in Social Dilemmas with Multi-Agent Reinforcement
Learning [4.2050490361120465]
A bottom-up learning approach may be more appropriate for studying and developing ethical behavior in AI agents.
We present a systematic analysis of the choices made by intrinsically-motivated RL agents whose rewards are based on moral theories.
We analyze the impact of different types of morality on the emergence of cooperation, defection or exploitation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-01-20T09:36:42Z) - Delphi: Towards Machine Ethics and Norms [38.8316885346292]
We identify four underlying challenges towards machine ethics and norms.
Our prototype model, Delphi, demonstrates strong promise of language-based commonsense moral reasoning.
We present Commonsense Norm Bank, a moral textbook customized for machines.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-10-14T17:38:12Z) - Ethical-Advice Taker: Do Language Models Understand Natural Language
Interventions? [62.74872383104381]
We investigate the effectiveness of natural language interventions for reading-comprehension systems.
We propose a new language understanding task, Linguistic Ethical Interventions (LEI), where the goal is to amend a question-answering (QA) model's unethical behavior.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-02T20:57:58Z) - Aligning AI With Shared Human Values [85.2824609130584]
We introduce the ETHICS dataset, a new benchmark that spans concepts in justice, well-being, duties, virtues, and commonsense morality.
We find that current language models have a promising but incomplete ability to predict basic human ethical judgements.
Our work shows that progress can be made on machine ethics today, and it provides a steppingstone toward AI that is aligned with human values.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-08-05T17:59:16Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.