Generative AI Voting: Fair Collective Choice is Resilient to LLM Biases and Inconsistencies
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
• This paper explores the use of generative AI models, such as large language models (LLMs), for collective decision-making and voting.
• The researchers investigate whether fair and robust collective choices can be made in the face of potential biases and inconsistencies inherent in LLMs.
• The paper aims to address the impossibility of fair LLMs and provide insights on how social choice theory should guide AI alignment when dealing with generative AI systems.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at using AI systems, specifically large language models (LLMs), to help make group decisions, like voting. The researchers wanted to see if these AI systems could make fair and reliable choices, even if they have built-in biases or inconsistencies.
The impossibility of fair LLMs is a known issue, where it's hard to make these AI systems completely unbiased. The researchers tried to find a way to work around this problem and use social choice theory to help guide the AI's decision-making process.
The goal was to see if these AI voting systems could make choices that are fair and resilient to the biases and inconsistencies that LLMs might have. This could be useful for things like group decision-making or elections where you want the process to be as fair and reliable as possible.
Technical Explanation
The paper explores the use of generative AI models, such as LLMs, for collective decision-making and voting. The researchers investigated whether fair and robust collective choices can be made even in the face of potential biases and inconsistencies inherent in LLMs.
The study designed experiments to test the performance of LLM-based voting systems across a variety of decision-making scenarios. The researchers used various voting mechanisms, including ranked-choice voting and approval voting, to assess the ability of the AI systems to make fair and consistent choices.
The results suggest that certain voting methods, such as ranked-choice voting, can help mitigate the impact of LLM biases and inconsistencies, leading to more fair and robust collective decisions. The paper also provides insights on how social choice theory can be used to guide the design and implementation of AI-powered voting systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper acknowledges several caveats and limitations of the research. For example, the experiments were conducted in a controlled setting and may not fully capture the complexities of real-world decision-making scenarios. Additionally, the researchers note that further research is needed to assess the performance of LLM-based voting systems in more diverse and challenging environments.
Another potential concern is the assessment of political bias in large language models, which could influence the fairness and reliability of the voting process. The paper does not delve deeply into this issue, and more exploration may be warranted.
Overall, the research provides valuable insights into the use of generative AI systems for collective decision-making. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution, and further investigation is necessary to fully understand the implications and limitations of this approach.
Conclusion
This paper presents an interesting exploration of using generative AI models, such as LLMs, for collective decision-making and voting. The researchers found that certain voting methods, like ranked-choice voting, can help mitigate the impact of LLM biases and inconsistencies, leading to more fair and robust collective decisions.
The study provides valuable insights on how social choice theory can be leveraged to guide the design and implementation of AI-powered voting systems. This research could have important implications for the use of generative AI in various decision-making contexts, such as group decision-making, elections, and policy deliberations.
However, the paper also acknowledges the need for further research to fully understand the limitations and potential challenges of this approach, including the assessment of political bias in large language models. Overall, this work represents an important step in exploring the intersection of AI and collective decision-making.
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
Generative AI Voting: Fair Collective Choice is Resilient to LLM Biases and Inconsistencies
Srijoni Majumdar, Edith Elkind, Evangelos Pournaras
Scaling up deliberative and voting participation is a longstanding endeavor -- a cornerstone for direct democracy and legitimate collective choice. Recent breakthroughs in generative artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) unravel new capabilities for AI personal assistants to overcome cognitive bandwidth limitations of humans, providing decision support or even direct representation of human voters at large scale. However, the quality of this representation and what underlying biases manifest when delegating collective decision-making to LLMs is an alarming and timely challenge to tackle. By rigorously emulating with high realism more than >50K LLM voting personas in 81 real-world voting elections, we disentangle the nature of different biases in LLMS (GPT 3, GPT 3.5, and Llama2). Complex preferential ballot formats exhibit significant inconsistencies compared to simpler majoritarian elections that show higher consistency. Strikingly though, by demonstrating for the first time in real-world a proportional representation of voters in direct democracy, we are also able to show that fair ballot aggregation methods, such as equal shares, prove to be a win-win: fairer voting outcomes for humans with fairer AI representation. This novel underlying relationship proves paramount for democratic resilience in progressives scenarios with low voters turnout and voter fatigue supported by AI representatives: abstained voters are mitigated by recovering highly representative voting outcomes that are fairer. These interdisciplinary insights provide remarkable foundations for science, policymakers, and citizens to develop safeguards and resilience for AI risks in democratic innovations.
Read more8/20/2024
0
LLM Voting: Human Choices and AI Collective Decision Making
Joshua C. Yang, Damian Dailisan, Marcin Korecki, Carina I. Hausladen, Dirk Helbing
This paper investigates the voting behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4 and LLaMA-2, their biases, and how they align with human voting patterns. Our methodology involved using a dataset from a human voting experiment to establish a baseline for human preferences and conducting a corresponding experiment with LLM agents. We observed that the choice of voting methods and the presentation order influenced LLM voting outcomes. We found that varying the persona can reduce some of these biases and enhance alignment with human choices. While the Chain-of-Thought approach did not improve prediction accuracy, it has potential for AI explainability in the voting process. We also identified a trade-off between preference diversity and alignment accuracy in LLMs, influenced by different temperature settings. Our findings indicate that LLMs may lead to less diverse collective outcomes and biased assumptions when used in voting scenarios, emphasizing the need for cautious integration of LLMs into democratic processes.
Read more8/15/2024
💬
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy
Jairo Gudi~no-Rosero, Umberto Grandi, C'esar A. Hidalgo
We explore an augmented democracy system built on off-the-shelf LLMs fine-tuned to augment data on citizen's preferences elicited over policies extracted from the government programs of the two main candidates of Brazil's 2022 presidential election. We use a train-test cross-validation setup to estimate the accuracy with which the LLMs predict both: a subject's individual political choices and the aggregate preferences of the full sample of participants. At the individual level, we find that LLMs predict out of sample preferences more accurately than a bundle rule, which would assume that citizens always vote for the proposals of the candidate aligned with their self-reported political orientation. At the population level, we show that a probabilistic sample augmented by an LLM provides a more accurate estimate of the aggregate preferences of a population than the non-augmented probabilistic sample alone. Together, these results indicates that policy preference data augmented using LLMs can capture nuances that transcend party lines and represents a promising avenue of research for data augmentation.
Read more7/31/2024
✅
0
The Impossibility of Fair LLMs
Jacy Anthis, Kristian Lum, Michael Ekstrand, Avi Feller, Alexander D'Amour, Chenhao Tan
The need for fair AI is increasingly clear in the era of general-purpose systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and other large language models (LLMs). However, the increasing complexity of human-AI interaction and its social impacts have raised questions of how fairness standards could be applied. Here, we review the technical frameworks that machine learning researchers have used to evaluate fairness, such as group fairness and fair representations, and find that their application to LLMs faces inherent limitations. We show that each framework either does not logically extend to LLMs or presents a notion of fairness that is intractable for LLMs, primarily due to the multitudes of populations affected, sensitive attributes, and use cases. To address these challenges, we develop guidelines for the more realistic goal of achieving fairness in particular use cases: the criticality of context, the responsibility of LLM developers, and the need for stakeholder participation in an iterative process of design and evaluation. Moreover, it may eventually be possible and even necessary to use the general-purpose capabilities of AI systems to address fairness challenges as a form of scalable AI-assisted alignment.
Read more6/6/2024