Beyond Turing Test: Can GPT-4 Sway Experts' Decisions?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16710v2
• Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:12:35 GMT
• Title: Beyond Turing Test: Can GPT-4 Sway Experts' Decisions?
• Authors: Takehiro Takayanagi, Hiroya Takamura, Kiyoshi Izumi, Chung-Chi Chen,
• Abstract summary: This paper explores how generated text impacts readers' decisions, focusing on both amateur and expert audiences. Our findings indicate that GPT-4 can generate persuasive analyses affecting the decisions of both amateurs and professionals. The results highlight a high correlation between real-world evaluation through audience reactions and the current multi-dimensional evaluators commonly used for generative models.
• Score: 14.964922012236498
• License:
• Abstract: In the post-Turing era, evaluating large language models (LLMs) involves assessing generated text based on readers' reactions rather than merely its indistinguishability from human-produced content. This paper explores how LLM-generated text impacts readers' decisions, focusing on both amateur and expert audiences. Our findings indicate that GPT-4 can generate persuasive analyses affecting the decisions of both amateurs and professionals. Furthermore, we evaluate the generated text from the aspects of grammar, convincingness, logical coherence, and usefulness. The results highlight a high correlation between real-world evaluation through audience reactions and the current multi-dimensional evaluators commonly used for generative models. Overall, this paper shows the potential and risk of using generated text to sway human decisions and also points out a new direction for evaluating generated text, i.e., leveraging the reactions and decisions of readers. We release our dataset to assist future research.

Related papers

• Who Writes What: Unveiling the Impact of Author Roles on AI-generated Text Detection [44.05134959039957]
  We investigate how sociolinguistic attributes-gender, CEFR proficiency, academic field, and language environment-impact state-of-the-art AI text detectors. Our results reveal significant biases: CEFR proficiency and language environment consistently affected detector accuracy, while gender and academic field showed detector-dependent effects. These findings highlight the crucial need for socially aware AI text detection to avoid unfairly penalizing specific demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T07:49:31Z)
• ExaGPT: Example-Based Machine-Generated Text Detection for Human Interpretability [62.285407189502216]
  Detecting texts generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) could cause grave mistakes due to incorrect decisions. We introduce ExaGPT, an interpretable detection approach grounded in the human decision-making process. We show that ExaGPT massively outperforms prior powerful detectors by up to +40.9 points of accuracy at a false positive rate of 1%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T01:15:07Z)
• ExPerT: Effective and Explainable Evaluation of Personalized Long-Form Text Generation [19.333896936153618]
  ExPerT is an explainable reference-based evaluation framework for personalized text generation. Our experiments demonstrate that ExPerT achieves a 7.2% relative improvement in alignment with human judgments. Human evaluators rated the usability of ExPerT's explanations at 4.7 out of 5, highlighting its effectiveness in making evaluation decisions more interpretable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T22:44:22Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs. Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews [51.453135368388686]
  We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM) Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T21:51:39Z)
• CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation [87.44350003888646]
  Eval-Instruct can acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and revise these critiques via multi-path prompting. CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T16:52:42Z)
• RELIC: Investigating Large Language Model Responses using Self-Consistency [58.63436505595177]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are notorious for blending fact with fiction and generating non-factual content, known as hallucinations. We propose an interactive system that helps users gain insight into the reliability of the generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T14:55:52Z)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments. It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)

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.