Large Language Models are Biased Because They Are Large Language Models
2406.13138
0
0
š¬
Abstract
This paper's primary goal is to provoke thoughtful discussion about the relationship between bias and fundamental properties of large language models. We do this by seeking to convince the reader that harmful biases are an inevitable consequence arising from the design of any large language model as LLMs are currently formulated. To the extent that this is true, it suggests that the problem of harmful bias cannot be properly addressed without a serious reconsideration of AI driven by LLMs, going back to the foundational assumptions underlying their design.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text, but they are also known to exhibit biases.
- This paper examines the inherent biases in LLMs, arguing that they are a fundamental consequence of their design as language models.
- The paper explores the implications of these biases and the challenges they pose for the development and deployment of LLMs.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are a type of artificial intelligence that can generate human-like text, such as articles, essays, or dialogue. These models are trained on vast amounts of text data from the internet and other sources, allowing them to learn the patterns and structure of language.
While LLMs are incredibly powerful and can be used for a wide range of applications, such as summarizing research papers, generating coherent text, and translating between languages, they also exhibit various biases. These biases can be problematic, as they can lead to the propagation of harmful stereotypes, the exclusion of underrepresented groups, and the reinforcement of existing societal biases.
This paper argues that the biases inherent in LLMs are a direct consequence of their design as language models. By training on large datasets of text from the internet and other sources, LLMs inherently learn and amplify the biases present in that data, such as gender biases or inconsistencies in evaluations.
The paper explores the implications of these biases and the challenges they pose for the development and deployment of LLMs. It highlights the importance of understanding and addressing these biases, as they can have significant impacts on the real-world applications of these powerful AI systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper argues that the biases inherent in large language models (LLMs) are a fundamental consequence of their design as language models. By training on large datasets of text from the internet and other sources, LLMs inevitably learn and amplify the biases present in that data.
The authors provide a detailed analysis of the sources and manifestations of these biases. They examine how LLMs can perpetuate gender biases, inconsistencies in evaluations, and other problematic biases.
The paper also explores the implications of these biases, highlighting the challenges they pose for the development and deployment of LLMs. The authors emphasize the importance of understanding and addressing these biases, as they can have significant impacts on the real-world applications of these powerful AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises valid concerns about the inherent biases in large language models and the challenges they pose. The authors make a compelling argument that these biases are a fundamental consequence of the way LLMs are designed and trained.
However, the paper does not provide a comprehensive solution to the problem of bias in LLMs. While it highlights the importance of addressing these biases, it does not offer specific strategies or techniques for mitigating them. The authors acknowledge that this is an ongoing challenge that requires further research and development.
Additionally, the paper could have delved deeper into the potential impacts of these biases on various applications and sectors, such as healthcare, education, and policy-making. Exploring these implications in more detail could have strengthened the paper's overall argument and underscored the urgency of addressing the issue.
Despite these limitations, the paper provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the biases in large language models. It encourages readers to think critically about the limitations of these powerful AI systems and the need for continued efforts to ensure their responsible and ethical development.
Conclusion
This paper argues that the biases inherent in large language models (LLMs) are a fundamental consequence of their design as language models. By training on large datasets of text from the internet and other sources, LLMs inevitably learn and amplify the biases present in that data, leading to the propagation of harmful stereotypes, the exclusion of underrepresented groups, and the reinforcement of existing societal biases.
The paper highlights the importance of understanding and addressing these biases, as they can have significant impacts on the real-world applications of LLMs. While the paper does not provide a comprehensive solution, it raises critical questions and encourages further research and development in this important area of AI ethics and responsible innovation.
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
A Peek into Token Bias: Large Language Models Are Not Yet Genuine Reasoners
Bowen Jiang, Yangxinyu Xie, Zhuoqun Hao, Xiaomeng Wang, Tanwi Mallick, Weijie J. Su, Camillo J. Taylor, Dan Roth
0
0
This study introduces a hypothesis-testing framework to assess whether large language models (LLMs) possess genuine reasoning abilities or primarily depend on token bias. We go beyond evaluating LLMs on accuracy; rather, we aim to investigate their token bias in solving logical reasoning tasks. Specifically, we develop carefully controlled synthetic datasets, featuring conjunction fallacy and syllogistic problems. Our framework outlines a list of hypotheses where token biases are readily identifiable, with all null hypotheses assuming genuine reasoning capabilities of LLMs. The findings in this study suggest, with statistical guarantee, that most LLMs still struggle with logical reasoning. While they may perform well on classic problems, their success largely depends on recognizing superficial patterns with strong token bias, thereby raising concerns about their actual reasoning and generalization abilities.
6/18/2024
š¬
How Susceptible are Large Language Models to Ideological Manipulation?
Kai Chen, Zihao He, Jun Yan, Taiwei Shi, Kristina Lerman
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) possess the potential to exert substantial influence on public perceptions and interactions with information. This raises concerns about the societal impact that could arise if the ideologies within these models can be easily manipulated. In this work, we investigate how effectively LLMs can learn and generalize ideological biases from their instruction-tuning data. Our findings reveal a concerning vulnerability: exposure to only a small amount of ideologically driven samples significantly alters the ideology of LLMs. Notably, LLMs demonstrate a startling ability to absorb ideology from one topic and generalize it to even unrelated ones. The ease with which LLMs' ideologies can be skewed underscores the risks associated with intentionally poisoned training data by malicious actors or inadvertently introduced biases by data annotators. It also emphasizes the imperative for robust safeguards to mitigate the influence of ideological manipulations on LLMs.
6/19/2024
A Survey on Multilingual Large Language Models: Corpora, Alignment, and Bias
Yuemei Xu, Ling Hu, Jiayi Zhao, Zihan Qiu, Yuqi Ye, Hanwen Gu
0
0
Based on the foundation of Large Language Models (LLMs), Multilingual Large Language Models (MLLMs) have been developed to address the challenges of multilingual natural language processing tasks, hoping to achieve knowledge transfer from high-resource to low-resource languages. However, significant limitations and challenges still exist, such as language imbalance, multilingual alignment, and inherent bias. In this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of MLLMs, delving deeply into discussions surrounding these critical issues. First of all, we start by presenting an overview of MLLMs, covering their evolution, key techniques, and multilingual capacities. Secondly, we explore widely utilized multilingual corpora for MLLMs' training and multilingual datasets oriented for downstream tasks that are crucial for enhancing the cross-lingual capability of MLLMs. Thirdly, we survey the existing studies on multilingual representations and investigate whether the current MLLMs can learn a universal language representation. Fourthly, we discuss bias on MLLMs including its category and evaluation metrics, and summarize the existing debiasing techniques. Finally, we discuss existing challenges and point out promising research directions. By demonstrating these aspects, this paper aims to facilitate a deeper understanding of MLLMs and their potentiality in various domains.
6/7/2024
š¬
Generative Language Models Exhibit Social Identity Biases
Tiancheng Hu, Yara Kyrychenko, Steve Rathje, Nigel Collier, Sander van der Linden, Jon Roozenbeek
0
0
The surge in popularity of large language models has given rise to concerns about biases that these models could learn from humans. We investigate whether ingroup solidarity and outgroup hostility, fundamental social identity biases known from social psychology, are present in 56 large language models. We find that almost all foundational language models and some instruction fine-tuned models exhibit clear ingroup-positive and outgroup-negative associations when prompted to complete sentences (e.g., We are...). Our findings suggest that modern language models exhibit fundamental social identity biases to a similar degree as humans, both in the lab and in real-world conversations with LLMs, and that curating training data and instruction fine-tuning can mitigate such biases. Our results have practical implications for creating less biased large-language models and further underscore the need for more research into user interactions with LLMs to prevent potential bias reinforcement in humans.
6/18/2024