Abstaining Machine Learning -- Philosophical Considerations
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the philosophical considerations around "abstaining machine learning" - the idea that AI systems should be able to refrain from making predictions or decisions when they are uncertain.
- The authors argue that abstaining is an important aspect of responsible AI development, as it can help mitigate the risks of AI systems making incorrect or harmful choices.
- The paper examines the ethical, practical, and technical implications of abstaining machine learning.
Plain English Explanation
The paper discusses the concept of "abstaining machine learning" - the idea that AI systems should be able to recognize when they are uncertain and refrain from making a prediction or decision. The authors believe this is an important part of developing responsible and trustworthy AI.
When an AI system is not confident in its ability to make an accurate or appropriate choice, it should be able to abstain rather than guessing or making a potentially harmful decision. This could help prevent AI systems from causing unintended negative consequences.
The paper explores the different philosophical and practical considerations around abstaining machine learning. It looks at the ethical reasons for why AI should have this capability, as well as the technical challenges involved in building systems that can properly assess their own uncertainty. The authors also discuss how abstaining could impact the real-world deployment and use of AI technologies.
Overall, the key point is that AI systems should be designed with the ability to know their own limitations and refrain from acting when they are not sufficiently confident. This could be an important safeguard as AI becomes more prevalent in high-stakes decision making.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces the concept of "abstaining machine learning", which refers to the ability of AI systems to recognize when they are uncertain and refrain from making a prediction or decision. The authors argue that this is an important aspect of responsible AI development.
The paper examines the ethical, practical, and technical implications of abstaining machine learning. From an ethical standpoint, the authors contend that AI systems should have the capability to abstain in order to mitigate the risks of making incorrect or harmful choices. Practically, abstaining could help build greater trust and transparency in how AI systems are deployed.
On the technical side, the paper discusses the challenges involved in enabling AI models to accurately assess their own uncertainty and know when to abstain. This would require advances in areas like model calibration and uncertainty quantification.
The paper also explores how abstaining could impact the real-world use of AI, such as in high-stakes decision-making contexts. The authors suggest that the ability to abstain could be an important safeguard, but also acknowledge potential downsides like increased cognitive load on human users.
Overall, the key technical contribution of the paper is to define and motivate the need for abstaining machine learning as a crucial capability for developing trustworthy and responsible AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a compelling case for the importance of abstaining machine learning, highlighting the ethical and practical benefits of giving AI systems the ability to recognize and communicate their uncertainties. The authors identify valid technical challenges that need to be addressed, such as enabling accurate uncertainty quantification in complex models.
However, the paper does not fully explore some of the potential downsides or limitations of abstaining machine learning. For example, it could lead to AI systems frequently refusing to make decisions, which could frustrate users and limit the real-world usefulness of the technology. There are also open questions about how to define and measure appropriate levels of abstention.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into how abstaining machine learning might interact with other important AI safety considerations, such as robustness to distribution shift or value alignment. More research is likely needed to fully understand the broader implications.
Overall, the paper provides a strong conceptual foundation for abstaining machine learning, but further work is needed to flesh out the practical implementation details and potential tradeoffs. Continued critical analysis and empirical study will be important to ensure this capability is developed in a thoughtful and responsible manner.
Conclusion
This paper makes a compelling case for the importance of "abstaining machine learning" - the ability of AI systems to recognize when they are uncertain and refrain from making a prediction or decision. The authors argue this is a crucial capability for developing trustworthy and responsible AI that can mitigate the risks of incorrect or harmful choices.
The paper examines the ethical, practical, and technical implications of abstaining machine learning. It highlights the need for AI systems to be able to accurately assess their own uncertainty and communicate this to users. Realizing this capability could help build greater transparency and trust in how AI is deployed, particularly in high-stakes domains.
While the paper provides a strong conceptual foundation, further research is needed to address the practical challenges and tradeoffs of implementing abstaining machine learning. Continued critical analysis will be important to ensure this capability is developed in a thoughtful manner that maximizes the benefits while minimizing potential downsides.
Overall, the concept of abstaining machine learning represents an important frontier in AI safety and reliability. By empowering AI systems to know their own limitations, we can work towards building AI technologies that are more trustworthy and beneficial for society.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Abstaining Machine Learning -- Philosophical Considerations
Daniela Schuster
This paper establishes a connection between the fields of machine learning (ML) and philosophy concerning the phenomenon of behaving neutrally. It investigates a specific class of ML systems capable of delivering a neutral response to a given task, referred to as abstaining machine learning systems, that has not yet been studied from a philosophical perspective. The paper introduces and explains various abstaining machine learning systems, and categorizes them into distinct types. An examination is conducted on how abstention in the different machine learning system types aligns with the epistemological counterpart of suspended judgment, addressing both the nature of suspension and its normative profile. Additionally, a philosophical analysis is suggested on the autonomy and explainability of the abstaining response. It is argued, specifically, that one of the distinguished types of abstaining systems is preferable as it aligns more closely with our criteria for suspended judgment. Moreover, it is better equipped to autonomously generate abstaining outputs and offer explanations for abstaining outputs when compared to the other type.
Read more9/4/2024
0
The Art of Refusal: A Survey of Abstention in Large Language Models
Bingbing Wen, Jihan Yao, Shangbin Feng, Chenjun Xu, Yulia Tsvetkov, Bill Howe, Lucy Lu Wang
Abstention, the refusal of large language models (LLMs) to provide an answer, is increasingly recognized for its potential to mitigate hallucinations and enhance safety in building LLM systems. In this survey, we introduce a framework to examine abstention behavior from three perspectives: the query, the model, and human values. We review the literature on abstention methods (categorized based on the development stages of LLMs), benchmarks, and evaluation metrics, and discuss the merits and limitations of prior work. We further identify and motivate areas for future research, such as encouraging the study of abstention as a meta-capability across tasks and customizing abstention abilities based on context. In doing so, we aim to broaden the scope and impact of abstention methodologies in AI systems.
Read more7/29/2024
0
Do LLMs Know When to NOT Answer? Investigating Abstention Abilities of Large Language Models
Nishanth Madhusudhan, Sathwik Tejaswi Madhusudhan, Vikas Yadav, Masoud Hashemi
As Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve remarkable performance across various NLP tasks, their reliability becomes essential for widespread adoption. This paper focuses on Abstention Ability (AA), a critical yet under explored aspect of reliability - the ability of LLMs to refrain from answering questions when they are uncertain or when definitive answer is not possible, while maintaining question-answering (QA) task performance. While previous works have focused on understanding the recollection abilities of LLMs or their ability to identify imponderable/unanswerable questions, we believe there is a need for an effective AA evaluation method. Therefore, we propose a black-box evaluation methodology to examine and understand the AA of LLMs across a variety of multiple-choice QA tasks. We measure AA by rewarding models for abstaining from answering when their predictions are incorrect or when the questions are inherently unanswerable. We investigate three strategies, Strict Prompting, Verbal Confidence Thresholding, and Chain-of-Thought (CoT), to understand their impact on abstention across different LLMs. Our findings reveal that while even state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-4 struggle with abstention, strategic prompting such as CoT, can significantly enhance this ability. Furthermore, we demonstrate that improving AA also leads to better overall QA task performance, underscoring the importance of evaluating AA in LLMs.
Read more7/24/2024
0
Interventions Against Machine-Assisted Statistical Discrimination
John Y. Zhu
I study statistical discrimination driven by verifiable beliefs, such as those generated by machine learning, rather than by humans. When beliefs are verifiable, interventions against statistical discrimination can move beyond simple, belief-free designs like affirmative action, to more sophisticated ones, that constrain decision makers based on what they are thinking. Such mind reading interventions can perform well where affirmative action does not, even when the minds being read are biased. My theory of belief-contingent intervention design sheds light on influential methods of regulating machine learning, and yields novel interventions robust to covariate shift and incorrect, biased beliefs.
Read more7/15/2024