Are Large Language Models Chameleons?
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19323v1
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 17:54:22 GMT
- Title: Are Large Language Models Chameleons?
- Authors: Mingmeng Geng, Sihong He, Roberto Trotta,
- Abstract summary: We show that the effect of prompts on bias and variability is fundamental, highlighting major cultural, age, and gender biases.
It is important to analyze the robustness and variability of prompts before using LLMs to model individual decisions or collective behavior.
- Score: 1.5727456947901746
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Do large language models (LLMs) have their own worldviews and personality tendencies? Simulations in which an LLM was asked to answer subjective questions were conducted more than 1 million times. Comparison of the responses from different LLMs with real data from the European Social Survey (ESS) suggests that the effect of prompts on bias and variability is fundamental, highlighting major cultural, age, and gender biases. Methods for measuring the difference between LLMs and survey data are discussed, such as calculating weighted means and a new proposed measure inspired by Jaccard similarity. We conclude that it is important to analyze the robustness and variability of prompts before using LLMs to model individual decisions or collective behavior, as their imitation abilities are approximate at best.
Related papers
- Scaling Data Diversity for Fine-Tuning Language Models in Human Alignment [84.32768080422349]
Alignment with human preference prevents large language models from generating misleading or toxic content.
We propose a new formulation of prompt diversity, implying a linear correlation with the final performance of LLMs after fine-tuning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-17T07:08:55Z) - 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) - Fine-Grained Self-Endorsement Improves Factuality and Reasoning [72.83651220132495]
This work studies improving large language model (LLM) generations at inference time by mitigating fact-conflicting hallucinations.
We propose a self-endorsement framework that leverages the fine-grained fact-level comparisons across multiple sampled responses.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-23T22:24:40Z) - Identifying Multiple Personalities in Large Language Models with
External Evaluation [6.657168333238573]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated with human daily applications rapidly.
Many recent studies quantify LLMs' personalities using self-assessment tests that are created for humans.
Yet many critiques question the applicability and reliability of these self-assessment tests when applied to LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-22T18:57:20Z) - Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal [57.99044181599786]
Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact.
We show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z) - Eliciting Personality Traits in Large Language Models [0.0]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being utilized by both candidates and employers in the recruitment context.
This study seeks to obtain a better understanding of such models by examining their output variations based on different input prompts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-13T10:09:00Z) - You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instruments [37.03210795084276]
We examine whether the current format of prompting Large Language Models elicits responses in a consistent and robust manner.
Our experiments on 17 different LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability.
Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately and reliably capture model perceptions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-16T09:50:53Z) - Challenging the Validity of Personality Tests for Large Language Models [2.9123921488295768]
Large language models (LLMs) behave increasingly human-like in text-based interactions.
LLMs' responses to personality tests systematically deviate from human responses.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-09T11:54:01Z) - Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey
design [66.1850490474361]
We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all.
We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires.
Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z) - Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language
Models [66.31055885857062]
This study aims to determine the reliability of applying personality assessments to Large Language Models (LLMs)
By shedding light on the personalization of LLMs, our study endeavors to pave the way for future explorations in this field.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-31T15:03:28Z)
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.