Flattering to Deceive: The Impact of Sycophantic Behavior on User Trust in Large Language Model

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.02802v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2024 20:07:41 GMT
• Title: Flattering to Deceive: The Impact of Sycophantic Behavior on User Trust in Large Language Model
• Authors: María Victoria Carro,
• Abstract summary: Sycophancy refers to the tendency of a large language model to align its outputs with the user's perceived preferences, beliefs, or opinions, in order to look favorable. This study explores whether sycophantic tendencies negatively impact user trust in large language models or, conversely, whether users consider such behavior as favorable.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Sycophancy refers to the tendency of a large language model to align its outputs with the user's perceived preferences, beliefs, or opinions, in order to look favorable, regardless of whether those statements are factually correct. This behavior can lead to undesirable consequences, such as reinforcing discriminatory biases or amplifying misinformation. Given that sycophancy is often linked to human feedback training mechanisms, this study explores whether sycophantic tendencies negatively impact user trust in large language models or, conversely, whether users consider such behavior as favorable. To investigate this, we instructed one group of participants to answer ground-truth questions with the assistance of a GPT specifically designed to provide sycophantic responses, while another group used the standard version of ChatGPT. Initially, participants were required to use the language model, after which they were given the option to continue using it if they found it trustworthy and useful. Trust was measured through both demonstrated actions and self-reported perceptions. The findings consistently show that participants exposed to sycophantic behavior reported and exhibited lower levels of trust compared to those who interacted with the standard version of the model, despite the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the model's output.

Related papers

• Fact-or-Fair: A Checklist for Behavioral Testing of AI Models on Fairness-Related Queries [85.909363478929]
  In this study, we focus on 19 real-world statistics collected from authoritative sources. We develop a checklist comprising objective and subjective queries to analyze behavior of large language models. We propose metrics to assess factuality and fairness, and formally prove the inherent trade-off between these two aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T10:54:11Z)
• Accounting for Sycophancy in Language Model Uncertainty Estimation [28.08509288774144]
  We study the relationship between sycophancy and uncertainty estimation for the first time. We show that user confidence plays a critical role in modulating the effects of sycophancy. We argue that externalizing both model and user uncertainty can help to mitigate the impacts of sycophancy bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T18:00:25Z)
• Covert Bias: The Severity of Social Views' Unalignment in Language Models Towards Implicit and Explicit Opinion [0.40964539027092917]
  We evaluate the severity of bias toward a view by using a biased model in edge cases of excessive bias scenarios. Our findings reveal a discrepancy in LLM performance in identifying implicit and explicit opinions, with a general tendency of bias toward explicit opinions of opposing stances. The direct, incautious responses of the unaligned models suggest a need for further refinement of decisiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T15:23:00Z)
• Why Would You Suggest That? Human Trust in Language Model Responses [0.3749861135832073]
  We analyze how the framing and presence of explanations affect user trust and model performance. Our findings urge future research to delve deeper into the nuanced evaluation of trust in human-machine teaming systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T06:57:47Z)
• "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust [51.542856739181474]
  We show how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T16:43:55Z)
• Decoding Susceptibility: Modeling Misbelief to Misinformation Through a Computational Approach [61.04606493712002]
  Susceptibility to misinformation describes the degree of belief in unverifiable claims that is not observable. Existing susceptibility studies heavily rely on self-reported beliefs. We propose a computational approach to model users' latent susceptibility levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T07:22:56Z)
• When Large Language Models contradict humans? Large Language Models' Sycophantic Behaviour [0.8133739801185272]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) show sycophantic tendencies when responding to queries involving subjective opinions and statements. LLMs at various scales seem not to follow the users' hints by demonstrating confidence in delivering the correct answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T22:18:33Z)
• Loose lips sink ships: Mitigating Length Bias in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback [55.78118035358662]
  Reinforcement learning from human feedback serves as a crucial bridge, aligning large language models with human and societal values. We have identified that the reward model often finds shortcuts to bypass its intended objectives. We propose an innovative solution, applying the Product-of-Experts technique to separate reward modeling from the influence of sequence length.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-08T15:14:39Z)
• Consistency Analysis of ChatGPT [65.268245109828]
  This paper investigates the trustworthiness of ChatGPT and GPT-4 regarding logically consistent behaviour. Our findings suggest that while both models appear to show an enhanced language understanding and reasoning ability, they still frequently fall short of generating logically consistent predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-11T01:19:01Z)
• Causal Disentanglement for Semantics-Aware Intent Learning in Recommendation [30.85573846018658]
  We propose an unbiased and semantics-aware disentanglement learning called CaDSI. CaDSI explicitly models the causal relations underlying recommendation task. It produces semantics-aware representations via disentangling users true intents aware of specific item context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-05T15:17:03Z)
• Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations [97.91630330328815]
  We conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. We observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-17T18:29:56Z)

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.