Exploring the psychology of LLMs' Moral and Legal Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01264v2
• Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:31:04 GMT
• Title: Exploring the psychology of LLMs' Moral and Legal Reasoning
• Authors: Guilherme F. C. F. Almeida, Jos\'e Luiz Nunes, Neele Engelmann, Alex Wiegmann, Marcelo de Ara\'ujo
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit expert-level performance in tasks across a wide range of different domains. Ethical issues raised by LLMs and the need to align future versions makes it important to know how state of the art models reason about moral and legal issues. We replicate eight studies from the experimental literature with instances of Google's Gemini Pro, Anthropic's Claude 2.1, OpenAI's GPT-4, and Meta's Llama 2 Chat 70b. We find that alignment with human responses shifts from one experiment to another, and that models differ amongst themselves as to their overall
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit expert-level performance in tasks across a wide range of different domains. Ethical issues raised by LLMs and the need to align future versions makes it important to know how state of the art models reason about moral and legal issues. In this paper, we employ the methods of experimental psychology to probe into this question. We replicate eight studies from the experimental literature with instances of Google's Gemini Pro, Anthropic's Claude 2.1, OpenAI's GPT-4, and Meta's Llama 2 Chat 70b. We find that alignment with human responses shifts from one experiment to another, and that models differ amongst themselves as to their overall alignment, with GPT-4 taking a clear lead over all other models we tested. Nonetheless, even when LLM-generated responses are highly correlated to human responses, there are still systematic differences, with a tendency for models to exaggerate effects that are present among humans, in part by reducing variance. This recommends caution with regards to proposals of replacing human participants with current state-of-the-art LLMs in psychological research and highlights the need for further research about the distinctive aspects of machine psychology.

Related papers

• One fish, two fish, but not the whole sea: Alignment reduces language models' conceptual diversity [2.5975241792179378]
  Researchers have proposed using large language models (LLMs) as replacements for humans in behavioral research. It is debated whether post-training alignment (RLHF or RLAIF) affects models' internal diversity. We use a new way of measuring the conceptual diversity of synthetically-generated LLM "populations" by relating the internal variability of simulated individuals to the population-level variability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T04:38:58Z)
• Mind Scramble: Unveiling Large Language Model Psychology Via Typoglycemia [27.650551131885152]
  Research into large language models (LLMs) has shown promise in addressing complex tasks in the physical world. Studies suggest that powerful LLMs, like GPT-4, are beginning to exhibit human-like cognitive abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T15:47:25Z)
• PersLLM: A Personified Training Approach for Large Language Models [66.16513246245401]
  We propose PersLLM, integrating psychology-grounded principles of personality: social practice, consistency, and dynamic development. We incorporate personality traits directly into the model parameters, enhancing the model's resistance to induction, promoting consistency, and supporting the dynamic evolution of personality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T08:13:22Z)
• The Good, the Bad, and the Hulk-like GPT: Analyzing Emotional Decisions of Large Language Models in Cooperation and Bargaining Games [9.82711167146543]
  We introduce a novel methodology to study the decision-making of Large Language Models (LLMs) We show that emotions profoundly impact the performance of LLMs, leading to the development of more optimal strategies. Surprisingly, emotional prompting, particularly with anger' emotion, can disrupt the "superhuman" alignment of GPT-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T14:08:54Z)
• 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)
• Exploring the Frontiers of LLMs in Psychological Applications: A Comprehensive Review [4.147674289030404]
  Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to simulate aspects of human cognition and behavior. LLMs offer innovative tools for literature review, hypothesis generation, experimental design, experimental subjects, data analysis, academic writing, and peer review in psychology. There are issues like data privacy, the ethical implications of using LLMs in psychological research, and the need for a deeper understanding of these models' limitations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-03T03:01:29Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks [49.60689355674541]
  A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments. We test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:57:32Z)
• Investigating Large Language Models' Perception of Emotion Using Appraisal Theory [3.0902630634005797]
  Large Language Models (LLM) have significantly advanced in recent years and are now being used by the general public. In this work, we investigate their emotion perception through the lens of appraisal and coping theory. We applied SCPQ to three recent LLMs from OpenAI, davinci-003, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 and compared the results with predictions from the appraisal theory and human data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T16:34:47Z)
• Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench [83.41621219298489]
  We evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) anthropomorphic capabilities using the emotion appraisal theory from psychology. We collect a dataset containing over 400 situations that have proven effective in eliciting the eight emotions central to our study. We conduct a human evaluation involving more than 1,200 subjects worldwide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T15:18:30Z)
• Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Models [62.57981196992073]
  This study aims to determine the reliability of applying personality assessments to Large Language Models. Analysis of 2,500 settings per model, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-Pro, and LLaMA-3.1, reveals that various LLMs show consistency in responses to the Big Five Inventory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T15:03:28Z)

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.