Testing AI on language comprehension tasks reveals insensitivity to underlying meaning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.12313v4
• Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:25:16 GMT
• Title: Testing AI on language comprehension tasks reveals insensitivity to underlying meaning
• Authors: Vittoria Dentella, Fritz Guenther, Elliot Murphy, Gary Marcus, Evelina Leivada,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are recruited in applications that span from clinical assistance and legal support to question answering and education. Yet, reverse-engineering is bound by Moravec's Paradox, according to which easy skills are hard. We systematically assess 7 state-of-the-art models on a novel benchmark.
• Score: 3.335047764053173
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are recruited in applications that span from clinical assistance and legal support to question answering and education. Their success in specialized tasks has led to the claim that they possess human-like linguistic capabilities related to compositional understanding and reasoning. Yet, reverse-engineering is bound by Moravec's Paradox, according to which easy skills are hard. We systematically assess 7 state-of-the-art models on a novel benchmark. Models answered a series of comprehension questions, each prompted multiple times in two settings, permitting one-word or open-length replies. Each question targets a short text featuring high-frequency linguistic constructions. To establish a baseline for achieving human-like performance, we tested 400 humans on the same prompts. Based on a dataset of n=26,680 datapoints, we discovered that LLMs perform at chance accuracy and waver considerably in their answers. Quantitatively, the tested models are outperformed by humans, and qualitatively their answers showcase distinctly non-human errors in language understanding. We interpret this evidence as suggesting that, despite their usefulness in various tasks, current AI models fall short of understanding language in a way that matches humans, and we argue that this may be due to their lack of a compositional operator for regulating grammatical and semantic information.

Related papers

• Do great minds think alike? Investigating Human-AI Complementarity in Question Answering with CAIMIRA [43.116608441891096]
  Humans outperform AI systems in knowledge-grounded abductive and conceptual reasoning. State-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4 and LLaMA show superior performance on targeted information retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T03:53:26Z)
• Language Model Alignment in Multilingual Trolley Problems [138.5684081822807]
  Building on the Moral Machine experiment, we develop a cross-lingual corpus of moral dilemma vignettes in over 100 languages called MultiTP. Our analysis explores the alignment of 19 different LLMs with human judgments, capturing preferences across six moral dimensions. We discover significant variance in alignment across languages, challenging the assumption of uniform moral reasoning in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T14:02:53Z)
• Large Language Models Lack Understanding of Character Composition of Words [3.9901365062418317]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performances on a wide range of natural language tasks. We show that most of them fail to reliably carry out even the simple tasks that can be handled by humans with perfection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-18T18:08:58Z)
• SOUL: Towards Sentiment and Opinion Understanding of Language [96.74878032417054]
  We propose a new task called Sentiment and Opinion Understanding of Language (SOUL) SOUL aims to evaluate sentiment understanding through two subtasks: Review (RC) and Justification Generation (JG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T06:48:48Z)
• A Sentence is Worth a Thousand Pictures: Can Large Language Models Understand Hum4n L4ngu4ge and the W0rld behind W0rds? [2.7342737448775534]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been linked to claims about human-like linguistic performance. We analyze the contribution of LLMs as theoretically informative representations of a target cognitive system. We evaluate the models' ability to see the bigger picture, through top-down feedback from higher levels of processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-26T18:58:53Z)
• ALERT: Adapting Language Models to Reasoning Tasks [43.8679673685468]
  ALERT is a benchmark and suite of analyses for assessing language models' reasoning ability. ALERT provides a test bed to asses any language model on fine-grained reasoning skills. We find that language models learn more reasoning skills during finetuning stage compared to pretraining state.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-16T05:15:41Z)
• Learn to Explain: Multimodal Reasoning via Thought Chains for Science Question Answering [124.16250115608604]
  We present Science Question Answering (SQA), a new benchmark that consists of 21k multimodal multiple choice questions with a diverse set of science topics and annotations of their answers with corresponding lectures and explanations. We show that SQA improves the question answering performance by 1.20% in few-shot GPT-3 and 3.99% in fine-tuned UnifiedQA. Our analysis further shows that language models, similar to humans, benefit from explanations to learn from fewer data and achieve the same performance with just 40% of the data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-20T07:04:24Z)
• Testing the Ability of Language Models to Interpret Figurative Language [69.59943454934799]
  Figurative and metaphorical language are commonplace in discourse. It remains an open question to what extent modern language models can interpret nonliteral phrases. We introduce Fig-QA, a Winograd-style nonliteral language understanding task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-26T23:42:22Z)
• My Teacher Thinks The World Is Flat! Interpreting Automatic Essay Scoring Mechanism [71.34160809068996]
  Recent work shows that automated scoring systems are prone to even common-sense adversarial samples. We utilize recent advances in interpretability to find the extent to which features such as coherence, content and relevance are important for automated scoring mechanisms. We also find that since the models are not semantically grounded with world-knowledge and common sense, adding false facts such as the world is flat'' actually increases the score instead of decreasing it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-27T06:19:20Z)
• Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic Structure [74.04862204427944]
  We propose an information-theoretic operationalization of probing as estimating mutual information. We evaluate on a set of ten typologically diverse languages often underrepresented in NLP research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-07T01:06:36Z)

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.