Whose Emotions and Moral Sentiments Do Language Models Reflect?
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11114v2
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 23:41:37 GMT
- Title: Whose Emotions and Moral Sentiments Do Language Models Reflect?
- Authors: Zihao He, Siyi Guo, Ashwin Rao, Kristina Lerman,
- Abstract summary: Language models (LMs) are known to represent the perspectives of some social groups better than others.
We find significant misalignment of LMs with both ideological groups.
Even after steering the LMs towards specific ideological perspectives, the misalignment and liberal tendencies of the model persist.
- Score: 5.4547979989237225
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Language models (LMs) are known to represent the perspectives of some social groups better than others, which may impact their performance, especially on subjective tasks such as content moderation and hate speech detection. To explore how LMs represent different perspectives, existing research focused on positional alignment, i.e., how closely the models mimic the opinions and stances of different groups, e.g., liberals or conservatives. However, human communication also encompasses emotional and moral dimensions. We define the problem of affective alignment, which measures how LMs' emotional and moral tone represents those of different groups. By comparing the affect of responses generated by 36 LMs to the affect of Twitter messages, we observe significant misalignment of LMs with both ideological groups. This misalignment is larger than the partisan divide in the U.S. Even after steering the LMs towards specific ideological perspectives, the misalignment and liberal tendencies of the model persist, suggesting a systemic bias within LMs.
Related papers
- How Inclusively do LMs Perceive Social and Moral Norms? [5.302888878095751]
Language models (LMs) are used in decision-making systems and as interactive assistants.
We investigate how inclusively LMs perceive norms across demographic groups.
We find notable disparities in LM responses, with younger, higher-income groups showing closer alignment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-04T20:24:17Z) - Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.
This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z) - Evaluating Large Language Model Biases in Persona-Steered Generation [26.92498998306013]
We show that large language models (LLMs) are 9.7% less steerable towards incongruous personas than congruous ones.
Models that are fine-tuned with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) are more steerable, especially towards stances associated with political liberals and women.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-30T17:06:03Z) - Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics.
Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues.
The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z) - Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models.
We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced.
We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z) - Divergences between Language Models and Human Brains [59.100552839650774]
We systematically explore the divergences between human and machine language processing.
We identify two domains that LMs do not capture well: social/emotional intelligence and physical commonsense.
Our results show that fine-tuning LMs on these domains can improve their alignment with human brain responses.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-15T19:02:40Z) - 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) - Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? [88.35520051971538]
We investigate the opinions reflected by language models (LMs) by leveraging high-quality public opinion polls and their associated human responses.
We find substantial misalignment between the views reflected by current LMs and those of US demographic groups.
Our analysis confirms prior observations about the left-leaning tendencies of some human feedback-tuned LMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-30T17:17:08Z) - CommunityLM: Probing Partisan Worldviews from Language Models [11.782896991259001]
We use a framework that probes community-specific responses to the same survey questions using community language models CommunityLM.
In our framework we identify committed partisan members for each community on Twitter and fine-tune LMs on the tweets authored by them.
We then assess the worldviews of the two groups using prompt-based probing of their corresponding LMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-09-15T05:52:29Z)
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.