Silico-centric Theory of Mind

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.09289v1
• Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:22:51 GMT
• Title: Silico-centric Theory of Mind
• Authors: Anirban Mukherjee, Hannah Hanwen Chang,
• Abstract summary: Theory of Mind (ToM) refers to the ability to attribute mental states, such as beliefs, desires, intentions, and knowledge, to oneself and others. We investigate ToM in environments with multiple, distinct, independent AI agents.
• Score: 0.2209921757303168
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Theory of Mind (ToM) refers to the ability to attribute mental states, such as beliefs, desires, intentions, and knowledge, to oneself and others, and to understand that these mental states can differ from one's own and from reality. We investigate ToM in environments with multiple, distinct, independent AI agents, each possessing unique internal states, information, and objectives. Inspired by human false-belief experiments, we present an AI ('focal AI') with a scenario where its clone undergoes a human-centric ToM assessment. We prompt the focal AI to assess whether its clone would benefit from additional instructions. Concurrently, we give its clones the ToM assessment, both with and without the instructions, thereby engaging the focal AI in higher-order counterfactual reasoning akin to human mentalizing--with respect to humans in one test and to other AI in another. We uncover a discrepancy: Contemporary AI demonstrates near-perfect accuracy on human-centric ToM assessments. Since information embedded in one AI is identically embedded in its clone, additional instructions are redundant. Yet, we observe AI crafting elaborate instructions for their clones, erroneously anticipating a need for assistance. An independent referee AI agrees with these unsupported expectations. Neither the focal AI nor the referee demonstrates ToM in our 'silico-centric' test.

Related papers

• Towards properly implementing Theory of Mind in AI systems: An account of four misconceptions [1.249418440326334]
  We identify four common misconceptions around theory of mind (ToM) These misconceptions should be taken into account when developing an AI system. After discussing the misconception, we end each section by providing tentative guidelines on how the misconception can be overcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T19:12:35Z)
• Evaluating Intelligence via Trial and Error [59.80426744891971]
  We introduce Survival Game as a framework to evaluate intelligence based on the number of failed attempts in a trial-and-error process. When the expectation and variance of failure counts are both finite, it signals the ability to consistently find solutions to new challenges. Our results show that while AI systems achieve the Autonomous Level in simple tasks, they are still far from it in more complex tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T05:59:45Z)
• Towards a Theory of AI Personhood [1.6317061277457001]
  We outline necessary conditions for AI personhood, focusing on agency, theory-of-mind, and self-awareness. If AI systems can be considered persons, then typical framings of AI alignment may be incomplete.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-23T10:31:26Z)
• Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition [78.76893632793497]
  We argue that shortcomings stem from one overarching failure: AI systems lack wisdom. While AI research has focused on task-level strategies, metacognition is underdeveloped in AI systems. We propose that integrating metacognitive capabilities into AI systems is crucial for enhancing their robustness, explainability, cooperation, and safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T18:10:10Z)
• Human Bias in the Face of AI: The Role of Human Judgement in AI Generated Text Evaluation [48.70176791365903]
  This study explores how bias shapes the perception of AI versus human generated content. We investigated how human raters respond to labeled and unlabeled content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T04:31:45Z)
• Explainable Human-AI Interaction: A Planning Perspective [32.477369282996385]
  AI systems need to be explainable to the humans in the loop. We will discuss how the AI agent can use mental models to either conform to human expectations, or change those expectations through explanatory communication. While the main focus of the book is on cooperative scenarios, we will point out how the same mental models can be used for obfuscation and deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-19T22:22:21Z)
• Brain-inspired and Self-based Artificial Intelligence [23.068338822392544]
  "Can machines think?" and the Turing Test to assess whether machines could achieve human-level intelligence is one of the roots of AI. This paper challenge the idea of a "thinking machine" supported by current AIs since there is no sense of self in them. Current artificial intelligence is only seemingly intelligent information processing and does not truly understand or be subjectively aware of oneself.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T01:15:17Z)
• Competent but Rigid: Identifying the Gap in Empowering AI to Participate Equally in Group Decision-Making [25.913473823070863]
  Existing research on human-AI collaborative decision-making focuses mainly on the interaction between AI and individual decision-makers. This paper presents a wizard-of-oz study in which two participants and an AI form a committee to rank three English essays.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-17T11:07:17Z)
• Best-Response Bayesian Reinforcement Learning with Bayes-adaptive POMDPs for Centaurs [22.52332536886295]
  We present a novel formulation of the interaction between the human and the AI as a sequential game. We show that in this case the AI's problem of helping bounded-rational humans make better decisions reduces to a Bayes-adaptive POMDP. We discuss ways in which the machine can learn to improve upon its own limitations as well with the help of the human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-03T21:00:51Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• On some Foundational Aspects of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence [52.03866242565846]
  There is no clear definition of what is meant by Human Centered Artificial Intelligence. This paper introduces the term HCAI agent to refer to any physical or software computational agent equipped with AI components. We see the notion of HCAI agent, together with its components and functions, as a way to bridge the technical and non-technical discussions on human-centered AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-29T09:58:59Z)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)
• Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective [54.80482955088197]
  We focus on six of the most crucial dimensions in achieving trustworthy AI: (i) Safety & Robustness, (ii) Non-discrimination & Fairness, (iii) Explainability, (iv) Privacy, (v) Accountability & Auditability, and (vi) Environmental Well-Being. For each dimension, we review the recent related technologies according to a taxonomy and summarize their applications in real-world systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T14:21:46Z)
• To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making [4.877174544937129]
  People supported by AI-powered decision support tools frequently overrely on the AI. Adding explanations to the AI decisions does not appear to reduce the overreliance. Our research suggests that human cognitive motivation moderates the effectiveness of explainable AI solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-19T00:38:53Z)

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.