Vox Populi, Vox ChatGPT: Large Language Models, Education and Democracy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.06207v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 17:47:46 GMT
• Title: Vox Populi, Vox ChatGPT: Large Language Models, Education and Democracy
• Authors: Niina Zuber and Jan Gogoll
• Abstract summary: This paper explores the potential transformative impact of large language models (LLMs) on democratic societies. The discussion emphasizes the essence of authorship, rooted in the unique human capacity for reason. We advocate for an emphasis on education as a means to mitigate risks.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: In the era of generative AI and specifically large language models (LLMs), exemplified by ChatGPT, the intersection of artificial intelligence and human reasoning has become a focal point of global attention. Unlike conventional search engines, LLMs go beyond mere information retrieval, entering into the realm of discourse culture. Its outputs mimic well-considered, independent opinions or statements of facts, presenting a pretense of wisdom. This paper explores the potential transformative impact of LLMs on democratic societies. It delves into the concerns regarding the difficulty in distinguishing ChatGPT-generated texts from human output. The discussion emphasizes the essence of authorship, rooted in the unique human capacity for reason - a quality indispensable for democratic discourse and successful collaboration within free societies. Highlighting the potential threats to democracy, this paper presents three arguments: the Substitution argument, the Authenticity argument, and the Facts argument. These arguments highlight the potential risks that are associated with an overreliance on LLMs. The central thesis posits that widespread deployment of LLMs may adversely affect the fabric of a democracy if not comprehended and addressed proactively and properly. In proposing a solution, we advocate for an emphasis on education as a means to mitigate risks. We suggest cultivating thinking skills in children, fostering coherent thought formulation, and distinguishing between machine-generated output and genuine, i.e. human, reasoning. The focus should be on responsible development and usage of LLMs, with the goal of augmenting human capacities in thinking, deliberating and decision-making rather than substituting them.

Related papers

• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [73.25935570218375]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language. We uncover notable diversity in the ideological stance exhibited across different LLMs and languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Can LLMs advance democratic values? [0.0]
  We argue that LLMs should be kept well clear of formal democratic decision-making processes. They can be put to good use in strengthening the informal public sphere.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T23:24:06Z)
• LLM Theory of Mind and Alignment: Opportunities and Risks [0.0]
  There is growing interest in whether large language models (LLMs) have theory of mind (ToM) This paper identifies key areas in which LLM ToM will show up in human:LLM interactions at individual and group levels. It lays out a broad spectrum of potential implications and suggests the most pressing areas for future research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T19:52:16Z)
• Large Language Models are as persuasive as humans, but how? About the cognitive effort and moral-emotional language of LLM arguments [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are already as persuasive as humans. This paper investigates the persuasion strategies of LLMs, comparing them with human-generated arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-14T19:01:20Z)
• Should We Fear Large Language Models? A Structural Analysis of the Human Reasoning System for Elucidating LLM Capabilities and Risks Through the Lens of Heidegger's Philosophy [0.0]
  This study investigates the capabilities and risks of Large Language Models (LLMs) It uses the innovative parallels between the statistical patterns of word relationships within LLMs and Martin Heidegger's concepts of "ready-to-hand" and "present-at-hand" Our findings reveal that while LLMs possess the capability for Direct Explicative Reasoning and Pseudo Rational Reasoning, they fall short in authentic rational reasoning and have no creative reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T19:40:53Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Democratizing Reasoning Ability: Tailored Learning from Large Language Model [97.4921006089966]
  We propose a tailored learning approach to distill such reasoning ability to smaller LMs. We exploit the potential of LLM as a reasoning teacher by building an interactive multi-round learning paradigm. To exploit the reasoning potential of the smaller LM, we propose self-reflection learning to motivate the student to learn from self-made mistakes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T07:50:10Z)
• Harnessing the Power of LLMs: Evaluating Human-AI Text Co-Creation through the Lens of News Headline Generation [58.31430028519306]
  This study explores how humans can best leverage LLMs for writing and how interacting with these models affects feelings of ownership and trust in the writing process. While LLMs alone can generate satisfactory news headlines, on average, human control is needed to fix undesirable model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T15:11:01Z)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
  We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)
• Voluminous yet Vacuous? Semantic Capital in an Age of Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as transformative forces in the realm of natural language processing, wielding the power to generate human-like text. This paper explores the evolution, capabilities, and limitations of these models, while highlighting ethical concerns they raise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T09:26:28Z)
• Large Language Models are In-Context Semantic Reasoners rather than Symbolic Reasoners [75.85554779782048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have excited the natural language and machine learning community over recent years. Despite of numerous successful applications, the underlying mechanism of such in-context capabilities still remains unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that the learned textitsemantics of language tokens do the most heavy lifting during the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:33:34Z)

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.