Do Large Language Models know what humans know?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.01515v3
• Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2023 02:36:32 GMT
• Title: Do Large Language Models know what humans know?
• Authors: Sean Trott, Cameron Jones, Tyler Chang, James Michaelov, Benjamin Bergen
• Abstract summary: We present a linguistic version of the False Belief Task to both human participants and a Large Language Model, GPT-3. Both are sensitive to others' beliefs, but while the language model significantly exceeds chance behavior, it does not perform as well as the humans, nor does it explain the full extent of their behavior. This suggests that while statistical learning from language exposure may in part explain how humans develop the ability to reason about the mental states of others, other mechanisms are also responsible.
• Score: 6.2997667081978825
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Humans can attribute beliefs to others. However, it is unknown to what extent this ability results from an innate biological endowment or from experience accrued through child development, particularly exposure to language describing others' mental states. We test the viability of the language exposure hypothesis by assessing whether models exposed to large quantities of human language display sensitivity to the implied knowledge states of characters in written passages. In pre-registered analyses, we present a linguistic version of the False Belief Task to both human participants and a Large Language Model, GPT-3. Both are sensitive to others' beliefs, but while the language model significantly exceeds chance behavior, it does not perform as well as the humans, nor does it explain the full extent of their behavior -- despite being exposed to more language than a human would in a lifetime. This suggests that while statistical learning from language exposure may in part explain how humans develop the ability to reason about the mental states of others, other mechanisms are also responsible.

Related papers

• Cross-lingual Speech Emotion Recognition: Humans vs. Self-Supervised Models [16.0617753653454]
  This study presents a comparative analysis between human performance and SSL models. We also compare the SER ability of models and humans at both utterance- and segment-levels. Our findings reveal that models, with appropriate knowledge transfer, can adapt to the target language and achieve performance comparable to native speakers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T13:27:17Z)
• Perceptions of Linguistic Uncertainty by Language Models and Humans [26.69714008538173]
  We investigate how language models map linguistic expressions of uncertainty to numerical responses. We find that 7 out of 10 models are able to map uncertainty expressions to probabilistic responses in a human-like manner. This sensitivity indicates that language models are substantially more susceptible to bias based on their prior knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:26:12Z)
• Theory of Mind abilities of Large Language Models in Human-Robot Interaction : An Illusion? [18.770522926093786]
  Large Language Models have shown exceptional generative abilities in various natural language and generation tasks. We study a special application of ToM abilities that has higher stakes and possibly irreversible consequences. We focus on the task of Perceived Behavior Recognition, where a robot employs a Large Language Model (LLM) to assess the robot's generated behavior in a manner similar to human observer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T18:09:36Z)
• The Neuro-Symbolic Inverse Planning Engine (NIPE): Modeling Probabilistic Social Inferences from Linguistic Inputs [50.32802502923367]
  We study the process of language driving and influencing social reasoning in a probabilistic goal inference domain. We propose a neuro-symbolic model that carries out goal inference from linguistic inputs of agent scenarios. Our model closely matches human response patterns and better predicts human judgements than using an LLM alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-25T19:38:01Z)
• Transparency Helps Reveal When Language Models Learn Meaning [71.96920839263457]
  Our systematic experiments with synthetic data reveal that, with languages where all expressions have context-independent denotations, both autoregressive and masked language models learn to emulate semantic relations between expressions. Turning to natural language, our experiments with a specific phenomenon -- referential opacity -- add to the growing body of evidence that current language models do not well-represent natural language semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T02:35:19Z)
• Do language models make human-like predictions about the coreferents of Italian anaphoric zero pronouns? [0.6091702876917281]
  We test whether 12 contemporary language models display expectations that reflect human behavior when exposed to sentences with zero pronouns. We find that three models - XGLM 2.9B, 4.5B, and 7.5B - capture the human behavior from all the experiments. This result suggests that human expectations about coreference can be derived from exposure to language, and also indicates features of language models that allow them to better reflect human behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-30T22:06:07Z)
• What Artificial Neural Networks Can Tell Us About Human Language Acquisition [47.761188531404066]
  Rapid progress in machine learning for natural language processing has the potential to transform debates about how humans learn language. To increase the relevance of learnability results from computational models, we need to train model learners without significant advantages over humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-17T00:12:37Z)
• Same Neurons, Different Languages: Probing Morphosyntax in Multilingual Pre-trained Models [84.86942006830772]
  We conjecture that multilingual pre-trained models can derive language-universal abstractions about grammar. We conduct the first large-scale empirical study over 43 languages and 14 morphosyntactic categories with a state-of-the-art neuron-level probe.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-04T12:22:31Z)
• Do Multilingual Language Models Capture Differing Moral Norms? [71.52261949766101]
  Massively multilingual sentence representations are trained on large corpora of uncurated data. This may cause the models to grasp cultural values including moral judgments from the high-resource languages. The lack of data in certain languages can also lead to developing random and thus potentially harmful beliefs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-18T12:26:37Z)
• PIGLeT: Language Grounding Through Neuro-Symbolic Interaction in a 3D World [86.21137454228848]
  We factorize PIGLeT into a physical dynamics model, and a separate language model. PIGLeT can read a sentence, simulate neurally what might happen next, and then communicate that result through a literal symbolic representation. It is able to correctly forecast "what happens next" given an English sentence over 80% of the time, outperforming a 100x larger, text-to-text approach by over 10%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T02:32:12Z)

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.