The Impossibility of Fair LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.03198v1
• Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 04:36:15 GMT
• Title: The Impossibility of Fair LLMs
• Authors: Jacy Anthis, Kristian Lum, Michael Ekstrand, Avi Feller, Alexander D'Amour, Chenhao Tan,
• Abstract summary: The need for fair AI is increasingly clear in the era of large language models (LLMs) We review the technical frameworks that machine learning researchers have used to evaluate fairness. We develop guidelines for the more realistic goal of achieving fairness in particular use cases.
• Score: 59.424918263776284
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The need for fair AI is increasingly clear in the era of general-purpose systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and other large language models (LLMs). However, the increasing complexity of human-AI interaction and its social impacts have raised questions of how fairness standards could be applied. Here, we review the technical frameworks that machine learning researchers have used to evaluate fairness, such as group fairness and fair representations, and find that their application to LLMs faces inherent limitations. We show that each framework either does not logically extend to LLMs or presents a notion of fairness that is intractable for LLMs, primarily due to the multitudes of populations affected, sensitive attributes, and use cases. To address these challenges, we develop guidelines for the more realistic goal of achieving fairness in particular use cases: the criticality of context, the responsibility of LLM developers, and the need for stakeholder participation in an iterative process of design and evaluation. Moreover, it may eventually be possible and even necessary to use the general-purpose capabilities of AI systems to address fairness challenges as a form of scalable AI-assisted alignment.

Related papers

• Persuasion with Large Language Models: a Survey [49.86930318312291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:05:52Z)
• A Human-in-the-Loop Fairness-Aware Model Selection Framework for Complex Fairness Objective Landscapes [37.5215569371757]
  ManyFairHPO is a fairness-aware model selection framework that enables practitioners to navigate complex and nuanced fairness objective landscapes. We demonstrate the effectiveness of ManyFairHPO in balancing multiple fairness objectives, mitigating risks such as self-fulfilling prophecies, and providing interpretable insights to guide stakeholders in making fairness-aware modeling decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T07:32:24Z)
• Can Long-Context Language Models Subsume Retrieval, RAG, SQL, and More? [54.667202878390526]
  Long-context language models (LCLMs) have the potential to revolutionize our approach to tasks traditionally reliant on external tools like retrieval systems or databases. We introduce LOFT, a benchmark of real-world tasks requiring context up to millions of tokens designed to evaluate LCLMs' performance on in-context retrieval and reasoning. Our findings reveal LCLMs' surprising ability to rival state-of-the-art retrieval and RAG systems, despite never having been explicitly trained for these tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T00:28:58Z)
• Navigating LLM Ethics: Advancements, Challenges, and Future Directions [5.023563968303034]
  This study addresses ethical issues surrounding Large Language Models (LLMs) within the field of artificial intelligence. It explores the common ethical challenges posed by both LLMs and other AI systems. It highlights challenges such as hallucination, verifiable accountability, and decoding censorship complexity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-14T15:03:05Z)
• Few-Shot Fairness: Unveiling LLM's Potential for Fairness-Aware Classification [7.696798306913988]
  We introduce a framework outlining fairness regulations aligned with various fairness definitions. We explore the configuration for in-context learning and the procedure for selecting in-context demonstrations using RAG. Experiments conducted with different LLMs indicate that GPT-4 delivers superior results in terms of both accuracy and fairness compared to other models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T17:29:27Z)
• Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence [5.147767778946168]
  We critically assess 23 state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks. Our research uncovered significant limitations, including biases, difficulties in measuring genuine reasoning, adaptability, implementation inconsistencies, prompt engineering complexity, diversity, and the overlooking of cultural and ideological norms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T11:08:10Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Skills-in-Context Prompting: Unlocking Compositionality in Large Language Models [68.18370230899102]
  We investigate how to elicit compositional generalization capabilities in large language models (LLMs) We find that demonstrating both foundational skills and compositional examples grounded in these skills within the same prompt context is crucial. We show that fine-tuning LLMs with SKiC-style data can elicit zero-shot weak-to-strong generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T05:54:12Z)
• Can Fairness be Automated? Guidelines and Opportunities for Fairness-aware AutoML [52.86328317233883]
  We present a comprehensive overview of different ways in which fairness-related harm can arise. We highlight several open technical challenges for future work in this direction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T09:40:08Z)
• Getting Fairness Right: Towards a Toolbox for Practitioners [2.4364387374267427]
  The potential risk of AI systems unintentionally embedding and reproducing bias has attracted the attention of machine learning practitioners and society at large. This paper proposes to draft a toolbox which helps practitioners to ensure fair AI practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-15T20:53:50Z)

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.