Societal Impacts Research Requires Benchmarks for Creative Composition Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06549v1
• Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2025 03:12:16 GMT
• Title: Societal Impacts Research Requires Benchmarks for Creative Composition Tasks
• Authors: Judy Hanwen Shen, Carlos Guestrin,
• Abstract summary: This position paper argues that benchmarks focused on creative composition tasks is a necessary step towards understanding the societal harms of AI-generated content.<n>We identify creative composition tasks as a prevalent usage category where users seek help with personal tasks that require everyday creativity.<n>We call for greater transparency in usage patterns to inform the development of new benchmarks that can effectively measure both the progress and the impacts of models with creative capabilities.
• Score: 10.67427286900562
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Foundation models that are capable of automating cognitive tasks represent a pivotal technological shift, yet their societal implications remain unclear. These systems promise exciting advances, yet they also risk flooding our information ecosystem with formulaic, homogeneous, and potentially misleading synthetic content. Developing benchmarks grounded in real use cases where these risks are most significant is therefore critical. Through a thematic analysis using 2 million language model user prompts, we identify creative composition tasks as a prevalent usage category where users seek help with personal tasks that require everyday creativity. Our fine-grained analysis identifies mismatches between current benchmarks and usage patterns among these tasks. Crucially, we argue that the same use cases that currently lack thorough evaluations can lead to negative downstream impacts. This position paper argues that benchmarks focused on creative composition tasks is a necessary step towards understanding the societal harms of AI-generated content. We call for greater transparency in usage patterns to inform the development of new benchmarks that can effectively measure both the progress and the impacts of models with creative capabilities.

Related papers

• Interactive Agents to Overcome Ambiguity in Software Engineering [61.40183840499932]
  AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on ambiguous and underspecified user instructions.<n>Making unwarranted assumptions and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes.<n>We study the ability of LLM agents to handle ambiguous instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T17:12:26Z)
• Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation [2.2241228857601727]
  This paper presents an interdisciplinary meta-review of about 100 studies that discuss shortcomings in quantitative benchmarking practices.<n>It brings together many fine-grained issues in the design and application of benchmarks with broader sociotechnical issues.<n>Our review also highlights a series of systemic flaws in current practices, such as misaligned incentives, construct validity issues, unknown unknowns, and problems with the gaming of benchmark results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T15:25:06Z)
• Ethics and Technical Aspects of Generative AI Models in Digital Content Creation [0.0]
  Generative AI models like GPT-4o and DALL-E 3 are reshaping digital content creation.<n>This paper examines both the capabilities and challenges of these models within creative industries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T22:53:29Z)
• Can foundation models actively gather information in interactive environments to test hypotheses? [56.651636971591536]
  We introduce a framework in which a model must determine the factors influencing a hidden reward function.<n>We investigate whether approaches such as self- throughput and increased inference time improve information gathering efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T12:27:21Z)
• More than Marketing? On the Information Value of AI Benchmarks for Practitioners [42.73526862595375]
  In academia, public benchmarks were generally viewed as suitable measures for capturing research progress.<n>In product and policy, benchmarks were often found to be inadequate for informing substantive decisions.<n>We conclude that effective benchmarks should provide meaningful, real-world evaluations, incorporate domain expertise, and maintain transparency in scope and goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-07T03:35:39Z)
• Exploring the Trade-off between Plausibility, Change Intensity and Adversarial Power in Counterfactual Explanations using Multi-objective Optimization [73.89239820192894]
  We argue that automated counterfactual generation should regard several aspects of the produced adversarial instances. We present a novel framework for the generation of counterfactual examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T15:02:53Z)
• Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space [62.997667081978825]
  Counterfactual explanations aim to provide to end users a set of features that need to be changed in order to achieve a desired outcome. Current approaches rarely take into account the feasibility of actions needed to achieve the proposed explanations. We present Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space (CEILS), a methodology to generate counterfactual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T20:48:48Z)
• Knowledge-driven Data Construction for Zero-shot Evaluation in Commonsense Question Answering [80.60605604261416]
  We propose a novel neuro-symbolic framework for zero-shot question answering across commonsense tasks. We vary the set of language models, training regimes, knowledge sources, and data generation strategies, and measure their impact across tasks. We show that, while an individual knowledge graph is better suited for specific tasks, a global knowledge graph brings consistent gains across different tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-07T22:52:21Z)
• Generating Fact Checking Explanations [52.879658637466605]
  A crucial piece of the puzzle that is still missing is to understand how to automate the most elaborate part of the process. This paper provides the first study of how these explanations can be generated automatically based on available claim context. Our results indicate that optimising both objectives at the same time, rather than training them separately, improves the performance of a fact checking system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-13T05:23:25Z)

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.