On the Principles behind Opinion Dynamics in Multi-Agent Systems of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.15492v2
• Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2024 17:37:28 GMT
• Title: On the Principles behind Opinion Dynamics in Multi-Agent Systems of Large Language Models
• Authors: Pedro Cisneros-Velarde,
• Abstract summary: We study the evolution of opinions inside a population of interacting large language models (LLMs) We identify biases that drive the exchange of opinions based on the LLM's tendency to find consensus with the other LLM's opinion. We find these biases are affected by the perceived absence of compelling reasons for opinion change, the perceived willingness to engage in discussion, and the distribution of allocation values.
• Score: 2.8282906214258805
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We study the evolution of opinions inside a population of interacting large language models (LLMs). Every LLM needs to decide how much funding to allocate to an item with three initial possibilities: full, partial, or no funding. We identify biases that drive the exchange of opinions based on the LLM's tendency to find consensus with the other LLM's opinion, display caution when specifying funding, and consider ethical concerns in its opinion. We find these biases are affected by the perceived absence of compelling reasons for opinion change, the perceived willingness to engage in discussion, and the distribution of allocation values. Moreover, tensions among biases can lead to the survival of funding for items with negative connotations. We also find that the final distribution of full, partial, and no funding opinions is more diverse when an LLM freely forms its opinion after an interaction than when its opinion is a multiple-choice selection among the three allocation options. In the latter case, consensus is mostly attained. When agents are aware of past opinions, they seek to maintain consistency with them, changing the opinion dynamics. Our study is performed using Llama 3 and Mistral LLMs.

Related papers

• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Bias in the Mirror: Are LLMs opinions robust to their own adversarial attacks ? [22.0383367888756]
  Large language models (LLMs) inherit biases from their training data and alignment processes, influencing their responses in subtle ways. We introduce a novel approach where two instances of an LLM engage in self-debate, arguing opposing viewpoints to persuade a neutral version of the model. We evaluate how firmly biases hold and whether models are susceptible to reinforcing misinformation or shifting to harmful viewpoints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T13:06:02Z)
• Vox Populi, Vox AI? Using Language Models to Estimate German Public Opinion [45.84205238554709]
  We generate a synthetic sample of personas matching the individual characteristics of the 2017 German Longitudinal Election Study respondents. We ask the LLM GPT-3.5 to predict each respondent's vote choice and compare these predictions to the survey-based estimates. We find that GPT-3.5 does not predict citizens' vote choice accurately, exhibiting a bias towards the Green and Left parties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T14:52:18Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Sentiment Analysis through LLM Negotiations [58.67939611291001]
  A standard paradigm for sentiment analysis is to rely on a singular LLM and makes the decision in a single round. This paper introduces a multi-LLM negotiation framework for sentiment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:35:29Z)
• Quantifying the Impact of Large Language Models on Collective Opinion Dynamics [7.0012506428382375]
  We create an opinion network dynamics model to encode the opinions of large language models (LLMs) The results suggest that the output opinion of LLMs has a unique and positive effect on the collective opinion difference. Our experiments also find that introducing extra agents with opposite/neutral/random opinions, we can effectively mitigate the impact of biased/toxic output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T05:45:17Z)
• Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? [88.35520051971538]
  We investigate the opinions reflected by language models (LMs) by leveraging high-quality public opinion polls and their associated human responses. We find substantial misalignment between the views reflected by current LMs and those of US demographic groups. Our analysis confirms prior observations about the left-leaning tendencies of some human feedback-tuned LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T17:17:08Z)

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.