Comparing Rationality Between Large Language Models and Humans: Insights and Open Questions
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.09798v1
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 18:36:04 GMT
- Title: Comparing Rationality Between Large Language Models and Humans: Insights and Open Questions
- Authors: Dana Alsagheer, Rabimba Karanjai, Nour Diallo, Weidong Shi, Yang Lu, Suha Beydoun, Qiaoning Zhang,
- Abstract summary: This paper focuses on the burgeoning prominence of large language models (LLMs)
We underscore the pivotal role of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) in augmenting LLMs' rationality and decision-making prowess.
- Score: 6.201550639431176
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: This paper delves into the dynamic landscape of artificial intelligence, specifically focusing on the burgeoning prominence of large language models (LLMs). We underscore the pivotal role of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) in augmenting LLMs' rationality and decision-making prowess. By meticulously examining the intricate relationship between human interaction and LLM behavior, we explore questions surrounding rationality and performance disparities between humans and LLMs, with particular attention to the Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer. Our research employs comprehensive comparative analysis and delves into the inherent challenges of irrationality in LLMs, offering valuable insights and actionable strategies for enhancing their rationality. These findings hold significant implications for the widespread adoption of LLMs across diverse domains and applications, underscoring their potential to catalyze advancements in artificial intelligence.
Related papers
- Predicting and Understanding Human Action Decisions: Insights from Large Language Models and Cognitive Instance-Based Learning [0.0]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated their capabilities across various tasks.
This paper exploits the reasoning and generative capabilities of the LLMs to predict human behavior in two sequential decision-making tasks.
We compare the performance of LLMs with a cognitive instance-based learning model, which imitates human experiential decision-making.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-12T14:13:06Z) - Meta Reasoning for Large Language Models [58.87183757029041]
We introduce Meta-Reasoning Prompting (MRP), a novel and efficient system prompting method for large language models (LLMs)
MRP guides LLMs to dynamically select and apply different reasoning methods based on the specific requirements of each task.
We evaluate the effectiveness of MRP through comprehensive benchmarks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-17T16:14:11Z) - Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
Large language models (LLMs) can estimate causal effects under interventions on different parts of a system.
We conduct empirical analyses to evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.
We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types, and enable a study of intervention-based reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z) - Can Language Models Recognize Convincing Arguments? [12.458437450959416]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have raised concerns about their potential misuse for creating personalized, convincing misinformation and propaganda.
We study their performance on the related task of detecting convincing arguments.
We show that LLMs perform on par with humans in these tasks and that combining predictions from different LLMs yields significant performance gains.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-31T17:38:33Z) - Wait, It's All Token Noise? Always Has Been: Interpreting LLM Behavior Using Shapley Value [1.223779595809275]
Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes.
However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain.
This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z) - Large Language Models and Causal Inference in Collaboration: A Comprehensive Survey [46.4375135354838]
Causal inference has shown potential in enhancing the predictive accuracy, fairness, robustness, and explainability of Natural Language Processing (NLP) models.
The emergence of generative Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly impacted various NLP domains.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-14T17:47:20Z) - 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) - K-Level Reasoning with Large Language Models [80.13817747270029]
We explore the dynamic reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) for decision-making in rapidly evolving environments.
We introduce two game theory-based pilot challenges that mirror the complexities of real-world dynamic decision-making.
These challenges are well-defined, enabling clear, controllable, and precise evaluation of LLMs' dynamic reasoning abilities.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-02T16:07:05Z) - From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for
Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions.
Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z) - Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems.
LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning.
We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)
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.