What does ChatGPT return about human values? Exploring value bias in ChatGPT using a descriptive value theory

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03612v1
• Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2023 12:20:13 GMT
• Title: What does ChatGPT return about human values? Exploring value bias in ChatGPT using a descriptive value theory
• Authors: Ronald Fischer, Markus Luczak-Roesch and Johannes A Karl
• Abstract summary: We test possible value biases in ChatGPT using a psychological value theory. We found little evidence of explicit value bias. We see some merging of socially oriented values, which may suggest that these values are less clearly differentiated at a linguistic level.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: There has been concern about ideological basis and possible discrimination in text generated by Large Language Models (LLMs). We test possible value biases in ChatGPT using a psychological value theory. We designed a simple experiment in which we used a number of different probes derived from the Schwartz basic value theory (items from the revised Portrait Value Questionnaire, the value type definitions, value names). We prompted ChatGPT via the OpenAI API repeatedly to generate text and then analyzed the generated corpus for value content with a theory-driven value dictionary using a bag of words approach. Overall, we found little evidence of explicit value bias. The results showed sufficient construct and discriminant validity for the generated text in line with the theoretical predictions of the psychological model, which suggests that the value content was carried through into the outputs with high fidelity. We saw some merging of socially oriented values, which may suggest that these values are less clearly differentiated at a linguistic level or alternatively, this mixing may reflect underlying universal human motivations. We outline some possible applications of our findings for both applications of ChatGPT for corporate usage and policy making as well as future research avenues. We also highlight possible implications of this relatively high-fidelity replication of motivational content using a linguistic model for the theorizing about human values.

Related papers

• Detecting value-expressive text posts in Russian social media [0.0]
  We aimed to find a model that can accurately detect value-expressive posts in Russian social media VKontakte. A training dataset of 5,035 posts was annotated by three experts, 304 crowd-workers and ChatGPT. ChatGPT was more consistent but struggled with spam detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T14:18:27Z)
• 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)
• Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Duties [68.66719970507273]
  Value pluralism is the view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another. As statistical learners, AI systems fit to averages by default, washing out potentially irreducible value conflicts. We introduce ValuePrism, a large-scale dataset of 218k values, rights, and duties connected to 31k human-written situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T01:24:59Z)
• ChatGPT as a Factual Inconsistency Evaluator for Text Summarization [17.166794984161964]
  We show that ChatGPT can evaluate factual inconsistency under a zero-shot setting. It generally outperforms previous evaluation metrics on binary entailment inference, summary ranking, and consistency rating. However, a closer inspection of ChatGPT's output reveals certain limitations including its preference for more lexically similar candidates, false reasoning, and inadequate understanding of instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T22:30:39Z)
• KPEval: Towards Fine-Grained Semantic-Based Keyphrase Evaluation [69.57018875757622]
  We propose KPEval, a comprehensive evaluation framework consisting of four critical aspects: reference agreement, faithfulness, diversity, and utility. Using KPEval, we re-evaluate 23 keyphrase systems and discover that established model comparison results have blind-spots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T17:45:38Z)
• Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study [121.77986688862302]
  We provide a preliminary meta-evaluation on ChatGPT to show its reliability as an NLG metric. Experimental results show that compared with previous automatic metrics, ChatGPT achieves state-of-the-art or competitive correlation with human judgments. We hope our preliminary study could prompt the emergence of a general-purposed reliable NLG metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-07T16:57:20Z)
• ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Text [2.0378492681344493]
  We study whether a machine learning model can be effectively trained to accurately distinguish between original human and seemingly human (that is, ChatGPT-generated) text. We employ an explainable artificial intelligence framework to gain insight into the reasoning behind the model trained to differentiate between ChatGPT-generated and human-generated text. Our study focuses on short online reviews, conducting two experiments comparing human-generated and ChatGPT-generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-30T08:06:08Z)
• Enabling Classifiers to Make Judgements Explicitly Aligned with Human Values [73.82043713141142]
  Many NLP classification tasks, such as sexism/racism detection or toxicity detection, are based on human values. We introduce a framework for value-aligned classification that performs prediction based on explicitly written human values in the command.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T09:10:49Z)
• COFFEE: Counterfactual Fairness for Personalized Text Generation in Explainable Recommendation [56.520470678876656]
  bias inherent in user written text can associate different levels of linguistic quality with users' protected attributes. We introduce a general framework to achieve measure-specific counterfactual fairness in explanation generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T02:29:10Z)
• Polling Latent Opinions: A Method for Computational Sociolinguistics Using Transformer Language Models [4.874780144224057]
  We use the capacity for memorization and extrapolation of Transformer Language Models to learn the linguistic behaviors of a subgroup within larger corpora of Yelp reviews. We show that even in cases where a specific keyphrase is limited or not present at all in the training corpora, the GPT is able to accurately generate large volumes of text that have the correct sentiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-15T14:33:58Z)
• The Ghost in the Machine has an American accent: value conflict in GPT-3 [0.0]
  We discuss how the co-creation of language and cultural value impacts large language models. We stress tested GPT-3 with a range of value-rich texts representing several languages and nations. We observed when values embedded in the input text were mutated in the generated outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-15T11:06:54Z)

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.