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

• The LLM Effect: Are Humans Truly Using LLMs, or Are They Being Influenced By Them Instead? [60.01746782465275]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown capabilities close to human performance in various analytical tasks. This paper investigates the efficiency and accuracy of LLMs in specialized tasks through a structured user study focusing on Human-LLM partnership.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T02:30:18Z)
• Understanding the Human-LLM Dynamic: A Literature Survey of LLM Use in Programming Tasks [0.850206009406913]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming programming practices, offering significant capabilities for code generation activities. This paper focuses on their use in programming tasks, drawing insights from user studies that assess the impact of LLMs on programming tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T19:34:46Z)
• Cognitive LLMs: Towards Integrating Cognitive Architectures and Large Language Models for Manufacturing Decision-making [51.737762570776006]
  LLM-ACTR is a novel neuro-symbolic architecture that provides human-aligned and versatile decision-making. Our framework extracts and embeds knowledge of ACT-R's internal decision-making process as latent neural representations. Our experiments on novel Design for Manufacturing tasks show both improved task performance as well as improved grounded decision-making capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-17T11:49:53Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values [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)
• 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.