Towards New Benchmark for AI Alignment & Sentiment Analysis in Socially Important Issues: A Comparative Study of Human and LLMs in the Context of AGI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.02531v1
• Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2025 13:18:13 GMT
• Title: Towards New Benchmark for AI Alignment & Sentiment Analysis in Socially Important Issues: A Comparative Study of Human and LLMs in the Context of AGI
• Abstract summary: This research aims to contribute towards establishing a benchmark for evaluating the sentiment of various Large Language Models in socially importan issues.<n>Seven LLMs, including GPT-4 and Bard, were analyzed and compared against sentiment data from three independent human sample populations.<n>GPT-4 recorded the most positive sentiment score towards AGI, whereas Bard was leaning towards the neutral sentiment.
• Score: 0.08192907805418582
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: With the expansion of neural networks, such as large language models, humanity is exponentially heading towards superintelligence. As various AI systems are increasingly integrated into the fabric of societies-through recommending values, devising creative solutions, and making decisions-it becomes critical to assess how these AI systems impact humans in the long run. This research aims to contribute towards establishing a benchmark for evaluating the sentiment of various Large Language Models in socially importan issues. The methodology adopted was a Likert scale survey. Seven LLMs, including GPT-4 and Bard, were analyzed and compared against sentiment data from three independent human sample populations. Temporal variations in sentiment were also evaluated over three consecutive days. The results highlighted a diversity in sentiment scores among LLMs, ranging from 3.32 to 4.12 out of 5. GPT-4 recorded the most positive sentiment score towards AGI, whereas Bard was leaning towards the neutral sentiment. The human samples, contrastingly, showed a lower average sentiment of 2.97. The temporal comparison revealed differences in sentiment evolution between LLMs in three days, ranging from 1.03% to 8.21%. The study's analysis outlines the prospect of potential conflicts of interest and bias possibilities in LLMs' sentiment formation. Results indicate that LLMs, akin to human cognitive processes, could potentially develop unique sentiments and subtly influence societies' perceptions towards various opinions formed within the LLMs.

Related papers

• Sympathetic Framing: Evaluating AI Alignment across Sociodemographic Groups [1.9307952728103126]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how we consume information and form our worldview.<n>This raises concerns beyond bias in AI: do LLMs grasp the emotional nuances conveyed via textual framing?<n>We empirically evaluate how well an array of LLMs aligns with human emotional perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-22T16:23:26Z)
• Assessment Design in the AI Era: A Method for Identifying Items Functioning Differentially for Humans and Chatbots [0.0]
  The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in education raises profound challenges for assessment design.<n>We introduce a statistically principled approach for identifying items on which humans and LLMs show systematic response differences.<n>The method is based on Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T19:39:39Z)
• Human-MME: A Holistic Evaluation Benchmark for Human-Centric Multimodal Large Language Models [118.44328586173556]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated significant advances in visual understanding tasks.<n>Human-MME is a curated benchmark designed to provide a more holistic evaluation of MLLMs in human-centric scene understanding.<n>Our benchmark extends the single-target understanding to the multi-person and multi-image mutual understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T12:20:57Z)
• Evaluating AI Alignment in Eleven LLMs through Output-Based Analysis and Human Benchmarking [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in psychological research and practice, yet traditional benchmarks reveal little about the values they express in real interaction.<n>We introduce PAPERS, output-based evaluation of the values LLMs express.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T20:14:02Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Evolutionary Perspectives on the Evaluation of LLM-Based AI Agents: A Comprehensive Survey [45.485318955120924]
  The transition from traditional large language models (LLMs) to more advanced AI agents represents a pivotal evolutionary step.<n>Existing evaluation frameworks often blur the distinctions between LLM chatbots and AI agents, leading to confusion among researchers selecting appropriate benchmarks.<n>This paper introduces a systematic analysis of current evaluation approaches, grounded in an evolutionary perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T17:52:18Z)
• MMAFFBen: A Multilingual and Multimodal Affective Analysis Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs and VLMs [33.73249122449025]
  We introduce MMAFFBen, the first extensive open-source benchmark for multilingual multimodal affective analysis.<n>MMAFFBen covers four key affective analysis tasks: sentiment polarity, sentiment intensity, emotion classification, and emotion intensity.<n>We construct the MMAFFIn dataset for fine-tuning LMs on affective analysis tasks, and further develop MMAFFLM-3b and MMAFFLM-7b based on it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T10:02:15Z)
• From Tokens to Thoughts: How LLMs and Humans Trade Compression for Meaning [52.32745233116143]
  Humans organize knowledge into compact categories through semantic compression.<n>Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable linguistic abilities.<n>But whether their internal representations strike a human-like trade-off between compression and semantic fidelity is unclear.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T16:29:00Z)
• LLM Ethics Benchmark: A Three-Dimensional Assessment System for Evaluating Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models [8.018569128518187]
  This study establishes a novel framework for systematically evaluating the moral reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Our framework addresses this challenge by quantifying alignment with human ethical standards through three dimensions.<n>This approach enables precise identification of ethical strengths and weaknesses in LLMs, facilitating targeted improvements and stronger alignment with societal values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-01T20:36:19Z)
• VisuLogic: A Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Reasoning in Multi-modal Large Language Models [121.03333569013148]
  We introduce VisuLogic: a benchmark of 1,000 human-verified problems across six categories. These types of questions can be evaluated to assess the visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs from multiple perspectives. Most models score below 30% accuracy-only slightly above the 25% random baseline and far below the 51.4% achieved by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T17:59:53Z)
• Prompt Sentiment: The Catalyst for LLM Change [0.29998889086656577]
  This study systematically examines how sentiment variations in prompts affect large language models (LLMs) Our analysis spans six AI-driven applications, including content generation, conversational AI, legal and financial analysis, healthcare AI, creative writing, and technical documentation. Our findings reveal that prompt sentiment significantly influences model responses, with negative prompts often reducing factual accuracy and amplifying bias, while positive prompts tend to increase verbosity and sentiment propagation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T06:25:21Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models Against Human Annotators in Latent Content Analysis: Sentiment, Political Leaning, Emotional Intensity, and Sarcasm [0.3141085922386211]
  This study evaluates the reliability, consistency, and quality of seven state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>A total of 33 human annotators and eight LLM variants assessed 100 curated textual items.<n>Results reveal that both humans and LLMs exhibit high reliability in sentiment analysis and political leaning assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-05T13:28:15Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [73.25935570218375]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language. We uncover notable diversity in the ideological stance exhibited across different LLMs and languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderation [64.26243779985393]
  For subjective tasks such as hate detection, where people perceive hate differently, the Large Language Model's (LLM) ability to represent diverse groups is unclear. By including additional context in prompts, we analyze LLM's sensitivity to geographical priming, persona attributes, and numerical information to assess how well the needs of various groups are reflected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T16:43:17Z)
• ValueCompass: A Framework for Measuring Contextual Value Alignment Between Human and LLMs [16.711615737109977]
  We introduce Value, a framework of fundamental values, grounded in psychological theory and a systematic review.<n>We apply Value to measure the value alignment of humans and large language models (LLMs) across four real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T02:13:03Z)
• Do Large Language Models Possess Sensitive to Sentiment? [18.88126980975737]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently displayed their extraordinary capabilities in language understanding. This paper investigates the ability of LLMs to detect and react to sentiment in text modal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T01:40:20Z)
• Language Model Alignment in Multilingual Trolley Problems [138.5684081822807]
  Building on the Moral Machine experiment, we develop a cross-lingual corpus of moral dilemma vignettes in over 100 languages called MultiTP.<n>Our analysis explores the alignment of 19 different LLMs with human judgments, capturing preferences across six moral dimensions.<n>We discover significant variance in alignment across languages, challenging the assumption of uniform moral reasoning in AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T14:02:53Z)
• Position: Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment [109.57781720848669]
  We argue that the research community should explicitly define and critically reflect on "alignment" to account for the bidirectional and dynamic relationship between humans and AI.<n>We introduce the Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment framework, which not only incorporates traditional efforts to align AI with human values but also introduces the critical, underexplored dimension of aligning humans with AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Beyond Human Norms: Unveiling Unique Values of Large Language Models through Interdisciplinary Approaches [69.73783026870998]
  This work proposes a novel framework, ValueLex, to reconstruct Large Language Models' unique value system from scratch. Based on Lexical Hypothesis, ValueLex introduces a generative approach to elicit diverse values from 30+ LLMs. We identify three core value dimensions, Competence, Character, and Integrity, each with specific subdimensions, revealing that LLMs possess a structured, albeit non-human, value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T09:44:51Z)
• GPT-4 Surpassing Human Performance in Linguistic Pragmatics [0.0]
  This study investigates the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to comprehend and interpret linguistic pragmatics. Using Grice's communication principles, LLMs and human subjects were evaluated based on their responses to various dialogue-based tasks. The findings revealed the superior performance and speed of LLMs, particularly GPT4, over human subjects in interpreting pragmatics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-15T05:40:15Z)
• Large Language Models as Automated Aligners for benchmarking Vision-Language Models [48.4367174400306]
  Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have reached a new level of sophistication, showing notable competence in executing intricate cognition and reasoning tasks. Existing evaluation benchmarks, primarily relying on rigid, hand-crafted datasets, face significant limitations in assessing the alignment of these increasingly anthropomorphic models with human intelligence. In this work, we address the limitations via Auto-Bench, which delves into exploring LLMs as proficient curation, measuring the alignment betweenVLMs and human intelligence and value through automatic data curation and assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-24T16:12:05Z)
• Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench [83.41621219298489]
  We evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) anthropomorphic capabilities using the emotion appraisal theory from psychology. We collect a dataset containing over 400 situations that have proven effective in eliciting the eight emotions central to our study. We conduct a human evaluation involving more than 1,200 subjects worldwide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T15:18:30Z)
• Exploring Qualitative Research Using LLMs [8.545798128849091]
  This study aimed to compare and contrast the comprehension capabilities of humans and AI driven large language models. We conducted an experiment with small sample of Alexa app reviews, initially classified by a human analyst. LLMs were then asked to classify these reviews and provide the reasoning behind each classification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T05:21:36Z)
• Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Models [62.57981196992073]
  This study aims to determine the reliability of applying personality assessments to Large Language Models. Analysis of 2,500 settings per model, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-Pro, and LLaMA-3.1, reveals that various LLMs show consistency in responses to the Big Five Inventory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T15:03:28Z)
• Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check [69.97942065617664]
  This paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in performing various sentiment analysis tasks. We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:45:25Z)
• Principle-Driven Self-Alignment of Language Models from Scratch with Minimal Human Supervision [84.31474052176343]
  Recent AI-assistant agents, such as ChatGPT, rely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with human annotations and reinforcement learning from human feedback to align the output with human intentions. This dependence can significantly constrain the true potential of AI-assistant agents due to the high cost of obtaining human supervision. We propose a novel approach called SELF-ALIGN, which combines principle-driven reasoning and the generative power of LLMs for the self-alignment of AI agents with minimal human supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-04T17:59:28Z)

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.