Just Like Me: The Role of Opinions and Personal Experiences in The Perception of Explanations in Subjective Decision-Making
2404.12558
0
0
Abstract
As large language models (LLMs) advance to produce human-like arguments in some contexts, the number of settings applicable for human-AI collaboration broadens. Specifically, we focus on subjective decision-making, where a decision is contextual, open to interpretation, and based on one's beliefs and values. In such cases, having multiple arguments and perspectives might be particularly useful for the decision-maker. Using subtle sexism online as an understudied application of subjective decision-making, we suggest that LLM output could effectively provide diverse argumentation to enrich subjective human decision-making. To evaluate the applicability of this case, we conducted an interview study (N=20) where participants evaluated the perceived authorship, relevance, convincingness, and trustworthiness of human and AI-generated explanation-text, generated in response to instances of subtle sexism from the internet. In this workshop paper, we focus on one troubling trend in our results related to opinions and experiences displayed in LLM argumentation. We found that participants rated explanations that contained these characteristics as more convincing and trustworthy, particularly so when those opinions and experiences aligned with their own opinions and experiences. We describe our findings, discuss the troubling role that confirmation bias plays, and bring attention to the ethical challenges surrounding the AI generation of human-like experiences.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores how people's personal opinions and experiences influence their perception of explanations in subjective decision-making.
- The researchers conducted experiments to understand how factors like gender, political ideology, and prior experiences shape individuals' views on explanations for decisions.
- The findings have implications for human-AI collaboration, trust in large language models, and the broader challenge of measuring subjective global opinions through language.
Plain English Explanation
Decision-making is often subjective, meaning different people can come to different conclusions even when presented with the same information. This paper investigates how an individual's personal background and experiences influence their perception of explanations for these types of decisions.
The researchers ran experiments where they asked participants to evaluate explanations for hiring decisions that could be seen as subjective. They found that factors like the participant's gender, political ideology, and past experiences significantly shaped how they judged the quality and fairness of the explanations. For example, women and political liberals tended to be more critical of explanations that could be seen as biased or unfair.
These findings suggest that when it comes to subjective decisions, people don't just objectively assess the reasons given - they also filter them through the lens of their own perspectives and life experiences. This has important implications for building trustworthy AI systems that can effectively communicate their reasoning, as well as understanding the role of human judgment in decision-making processes.
Technical Explanation
The paper conducted a series of experiments to investigate how personal factors like gender, political ideology, and past experiences influence people's perceptions of explanations for subjective decisions. In the experiments, participants were presented with descriptions of hiring decisions and asked to evaluate the quality and fairness of the explanations provided.
The results showed that these personal characteristics significantly shaped participants' judgments. For example, women and political liberals tended to be more critical of explanations that could be seen as biased or unfair, while men and conservatives were more likely to find the explanations acceptable.
The researchers argue that this is because people don't just objectively assess the reasons given - they also filter them through the lens of their own backgrounds and life experiences. This suggests that achieving shared understanding around subjective decisions is challenging, as each individual brings their own unique perspectives to the table.
The paper discusses the implications of these findings for building AI systems that can effectively communicate their reasoning in a way that is perceived as fair and trustworthy by diverse users. It also highlights the ongoing need to understand the complex role of human judgment in high-stakes decision-making processes.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides valuable insights into the subjective nature of how people perceive explanations, but it also has some limitations. The experiments were conducted with a relatively small and homogeneous sample, so the generalizability of the findings to more diverse populations is unclear. Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the underlying psychological mechanisms that drive these effects, leaving room for further research to unpack the cognitive and motivational factors at play.
While the paper acknowledges the challenges of achieving shared understanding around subjective decisions, it could have gone further in exploring potential strategies for bridging these divides. For example, it does not discuss how the framing or presentation of explanations might be adjusted to resonate better with individuals from different backgrounds.
Overall, this paper makes an important contribution to our understanding of the role of personal experiences and opinions in assessing explanations. However, additional research is still needed to fully untangle this complex issue and develop more effective approaches for navigating subjective decision-making, both in human and AI-assisted contexts.
Conclusion
This paper demonstrates that people's personal opinions and experiences significantly shape how they perceive and evaluate explanations for subjective decisions. The findings have implications for building trustworthy AI systems that can communicate their reasoning in a way that is seen as fair and acceptable by diverse users, as well as for understanding the nuanced role of human judgment in high-stakes decision-making processes.
While the paper provides valuable insights, further research is needed to fully explore the underlying psychological mechanisms and develop more effective strategies for navigating the challenges of subjective decision-making. Nonetheless, this work represents an important step forward in measuring and representing subjective global opinions through language, which has broad implications for the field of human-AI collaboration.
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
💬
Exploring Subjectivity for more Human-Centric Assessment of Social Biases in Large Language Models
Paula Akemi Aoyagui, Sharon Ferguson, Anastasia Kuzminykh
0
0
An essential aspect of evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) is identifying potential biases. This is especially relevant considering the substantial evidence that LLMs can replicate human social biases in their text outputs and further influence stakeholders, potentially amplifying harm to already marginalized individuals and communities. Therefore, recent efforts in bias detection invested in automated benchmarks and objective metrics such as accuracy (i.e., an LLMs output is compared against a predefined ground truth). Nonetheless, social biases can be nuanced, oftentimes subjective and context-dependent, where a situation is open to interpretation and there is no ground truth. While these situations can be difficult for automated evaluation systems to identify, human evaluators could potentially pick up on these nuances. In this paper, we discuss the role of human evaluation and subjective interpretation to augment automated processes when identifying biases in LLMs as part of a human-centred approach to evaluate these models.
5/21/2024
Why Would You Suggest That? Human Trust in Language Model Responses
Manasi Sharma, Ho Chit Siu, Rohan Paleja, Jaime D. Pe~na
0
0
The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revealed a growing need for human-AI collaboration, especially in creative decision-making scenarios where trust and reliance are paramount. Through human studies and model evaluations on the open-ended News Headline Generation task from the LaMP benchmark, we analyze how the framing and presence of explanations affect user trust and model performance. Overall, we provide evidence that adding an explanation in the model response to justify its reasoning significantly increases self-reported user trust in the model when the user has the opportunity to compare various responses. Position and faithfulness of these explanations are also important factors. However, these gains disappear when users are shown responses independently, suggesting that humans trust all model responses, including deceptive ones, equitably when they are shown in isolation. Our findings urge future research to delve deeper into the nuanced evaluation of trust in human-machine teaming systems.
6/5/2024
👨🏫
LLMs and the Human Condition
Peter Wallis
0
0
Theory based AI research has had a hard time recently and the aim here is to propose a model of what LLMs are actually doing when they impress us with their language skills. The model integrates three established theories of human decision-making from philosophy, sociology, and computer science. The paper starts with the collective understanding of reasoning from the early days of AI research - primarily because that model is how we humans think we think, and is the most accessible. It then describes what is commonly thought of as reactive systems which is the position taken by many philosophers and indeed many contemporary AI researchers. The third component to the proposed model is from sociology and, although not flattering to our modern ego, provides an explanation to a puzzle that for many years has occupied those of us working on conversational user interfaces.
5/9/2024
Explicit and Implicit Large Language Model Personas Generate Opinions but Fail to Replicate Deeper Perceptions and Biases
Salvatore Giorgi, Tingting Liu, Ankit Aich, Kelsey Isman, Garrick Sherman, Zachary Fried, Jo~ao Sedoc, Lyle H. Ungar, Brenda Curtis
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used in human-centered social scientific tasks, such as data annotation, synthetic data creation, and engaging in dialog. However, these tasks are highly subjective and dependent on human factors, such as one's environment, attitudes, beliefs, and lived experiences. Thus, employing LLMs (which do not have such human factors) in these tasks may result in a lack of variation in data, failing to reflect the diversity of human experiences. In this paper, we examine the role of prompting LLMs with human-like personas and asking the models to answer as if they were a specific human. This is done explicitly, with exact demographics, political beliefs, and lived experiences, or implicitly via names prevalent in specific populations. The LLM personas are then evaluated via (1) subjective annotation task (e.g., detecting toxicity) and (2) a belief generation task, where both tasks are known to vary across human factors. We examine the impact of explicit vs. implicit personas and investigate which human factors LLMs recognize and respond to. Results show that LLM personas show mixed results when reproducing known human biases, but generate generally fail to demonstrate implicit biases. We conclude that LLMs lack the intrinsic cognitive mechanisms of human thought, while capturing the statistical patterns of how people speak, which may restrict their effectiveness in complex social science applications.
6/21/2024