LLMs and the Human Condition
2402.08403
0
0
👨🏫
Abstract
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.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- The paper proposes a model that integrates three established theories of human decision-making to explain what large language models (LLMs) are actually doing when they impress us with their language skills.
- The model starts with the early AI understanding of reasoning, then moves to the reactive systems view, and finally incorporates a sociological perspective.
- The goal is to provide a more comprehensive explanation for the puzzle of how LLMs can be so persuasive and human-like in their language abilities.
Plain English Explanation
The paper attempts to shed light on what large language models are actually doing when they produce remarkably human-like language. The researchers draw on three well-established theories of how humans make decisions, from the fields of philosophy, sociology, and computer science.
First, the model starts with the early AI understanding of reasoning - the way we tend to think we think. This is a commonly held view, even if it doesn't fully capture the reality.
Next, the paper describes the "reactive systems" perspective, which is a view shared by many philosophers and contemporary AI researchers. This sees decision-making as more of an automatic, instinctive process.
Finally, the third component of the proposed model comes from sociology. While this sociological view may not be flattering to our modern sensibilities, it provides an explanation for a puzzle that has long fascinated those working on conversational user interfaces.
By integrating these three established theories, the researchers aim to offer a more comprehensive understanding of what LLMs are really doing when they impress us with their language abilities.
Technical Explanation
The paper starts by acknowledging the collective understanding of reasoning from the early days of AI research. This "classic" model is how we humans tend to think we think, and it provides a starting point for the proposed framework.
The researchers then describe the "reactive systems" view, which is a position taken by many philosophers and contemporary AI researchers. This perspective sees decision-making as more of an automatic, instinctive process, rather than a deliberative one.
The third component of the model comes from the field of sociology. While this sociological perspective may not be flattering to our modern sensibilities, it offers an explanation for a puzzle that has long occupied those working on conversational user interfaces - namely, how LLMs can be so persuasive and human-like in their language abilities.
By integrating these three established theories of human decision-making, the researchers aim to provide a more comprehensive model for understanding the behavior of large language models.
Critical Analysis
The paper acknowledges that the proposed model is not a complete or definitive explanation of LLM behavior. It recognizes that there may be other factors and theories that could contribute to a fuller understanding.
Additionally, the researchers note that the sociological perspective included in the model may be seen as unflattering or uncomfortable, as it suggests that our language abilities are influenced by social factors in ways that challenge our notions of individual agency and rationality.
Further research could explore the specific mechanisms and dynamics by which these various decision-making theories manifest in the behavior of large language models. There may also be opportunities to test the model's predictive power and refine it based on empirical observations.
Overall, the paper offers a thoughtful and multidisciplinary approach to understanding the inner workings of LLMs, while recognizing the inherent complexities and limitations of such an endeavor.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel model for understanding the language abilities of large language models, drawing on established theories of human decision-making from philosophy, sociology, and computer science.
By integrating these diverse perspectives, the researchers aim to provide a more comprehensive explanation for the puzzle of how LLMs can be so persuasive and human-like in their language production. While the model is not a definitive solution, it offers a nuanced and multidisciplinary framework for continued exploration and research in this rapidly evolving field.
The insights from this paper can contribute to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying LLM behavior, as well as the broader implications for the development and deployment of these powerful language models in various applications.
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
🏅
LLM Theory of Mind and Alignment: Opportunities and Risks
Winnie Street
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) are transforming human-computer interaction and conceptions of artificial intelligence (AI) with their impressive capacities for conversing and reasoning in natural language. There is growing interest in whether LLMs have theory of mind (ToM); the ability to reason about the mental and emotional states of others that is core to human social intelligence. As LLMs are integrated into the fabric of our personal, professional and social lives and given greater agency to make decisions with real-world consequences, there is a critical need to understand how they can be aligned with human values. ToM seems to be a promising direction of inquiry in this regard. Following the literature on the role and impacts of human ToM, this paper identifies key areas in which LLM ToM will show up in human:LLM interactions at individual and group levels, and what opportunities and risks for alignment are raised in each. On the individual level, the paper considers how LLM ToM might manifest in goal specification, conversational adaptation, empathy and anthropomorphism. On the group level, it considers how LLM ToM might facilitate collective alignment, cooperation or competition, and moral judgement-making. The paper lays out a broad spectrum of potential implications and suggests the most pressing areas for future research.
5/15/2024
💬
A Philosophical Introduction to Language Models - Part II: The Way Forward
Raphael Milli`ere, Cameron Buckner
0
0
In this paper, the second of two companion pieces, we explore novel philosophical questions raised by recent progress in large language models (LLMs) that go beyond the classical debates covered in the first part. We focus particularly on issues related to interpretability, examining evidence from causal intervention methods about the nature of LLMs' internal representations and computations. We also discuss the implications of multimodal and modular extensions of LLMs, recent debates about whether such systems may meet minimal criteria for consciousness, and concerns about secrecy and reproducibility in LLM research. Finally, we discuss whether LLM-like systems may be relevant to modeling aspects of human cognition, if their architectural characteristics and learning scenario are adequately constrained.
5/7/2024
Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating the Reasoning Behavior of Large Language Models -- A Survey
Philipp Mondorf, Barbara Plank
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown impressive performance on tasks involving reasoning, leading to a lively debate on whether these models possess reasoning capabilities similar to humans. However, despite these successes, the depth of LLMs' reasoning abilities remains uncertain. This uncertainty partly stems from the predominant focus on task performance, measured through shallow accuracy metrics, rather than a thorough investigation of the models' reasoning behavior. This paper seeks to address this gap by providing a comprehensive review of studies that go beyond task accuracy, offering deeper insights into the models' reasoning processes. Furthermore, we survey prevalent methodologies to evaluate the reasoning behavior of LLMs, emphasizing current trends and efforts towards more nuanced reasoning analyses. Our review suggests that LLMs tend to rely on surface-level patterns and correlations in their training data, rather than on genuine reasoning abilities. Additionally, we identify the need for further research that delineates the key differences between human and LLM-based reasoning. Through this survey, we aim to shed light on the complex reasoning processes within LLMs.
4/3/2024
Do LLMs Exhibit Human-Like Reasoning? Evaluating Theory of Mind in LLMs for Open-Ended Responses
Maryam Amirizaniani, Elias Martin, Maryna Sivachenko, Afra Mashhadi, Chirag Shah
0
0
Theory of Mind (ToM) reasoning entails recognizing that other individuals possess their own intentions, emotions, and thoughts, which is vital for guiding one's own thought processes. Although large language models (LLMs) excel in tasks such as summarization, question answering, and translation, they still face challenges with ToM reasoning, especially in open-ended questions. Despite advancements, the extent to which LLMs truly understand ToM reasoning and how closely it aligns with human ToM reasoning remains inadequately explored in open-ended scenarios. Motivated by this gap, we assess the abilities of LLMs to perceive and integrate human intentions and emotions into their ToM reasoning processes within open-ended questions. Our study utilizes posts from Reddit's ChangeMyView platform, which demands nuanced social reasoning to craft persuasive responses. Our analysis, comparing semantic similarity and lexical overlap metrics between responses generated by humans and LLMs, reveals clear disparities in ToM reasoning capabilities in open-ended questions, with even the most advanced models showing notable limitations. To enhance LLM capabilities, we implement a prompt tuning method that incorporates human intentions and emotions, resulting in improvements in ToM reasoning performance. However, despite these improvements, the enhancement still falls short of fully achieving human-like reasoning. This research highlights the deficiencies in LLMs' social reasoning and demonstrates how integrating human intentions and emotions can boost their effectiveness.
6/11/2024