Modulating Language Model Experiences through Frictions
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores how "frictions" can be used to modulate the experiences of language models, potentially mitigating undesirable outcomes while preserving their capabilities.
- Frictions refer to design choices that introduce deliberate obstacles or constraints into the language model's interactions, shaping the user's experience in specific ways.
- The paper presents a case study on the use of selective frictions, demonstrating how they can be applied to address issues like [relying-unreliable-impact-language-models-reluctance-to], [policy-improvement-using-language-feedback-models], [can-language-model-moderators-improve-health-online], [apprentices-to-research-assistants-advancing-research-large], and [feedback-loops-language-models-drive-context-reward].
Plain English Explanation
Language models, such as GPT-3, have become increasingly capable at generating human-like text. However, their widespread use has raised concerns about potential negative impacts, like the spread of misinformation, the manipulation of user decisions, or the reinforcement of biases. This paper explores a novel approach to address these challenges - the use of "frictions".
Frictions are intentional design choices that introduce obstacles or constraints into the language model's interactions with users. These frictions can be used to shape the user's experience in specific ways, potentially mitigating undesirable outcomes while preserving the model's core capabilities.
For example, a friction could be implemented to prompt the user for additional context or clarification before the model generates a response, or to require the user to acknowledge certain caveats or limitations before proceeding. Frictions could also be used to limit the model's ability to generate certain types of content, such as explicit or harmful material.
The paper presents a case study that demonstrates how selective frictions can be applied to address a range of issues, such as [relying-unreliable-impact-language-models-reluctance-to], [policy-improvement-using-language-feedback-models], [can-language-model-moderators-improve-health-online], [apprentices-to-research-assistants-advancing-research-large], and [feedback-loops-language-models-drive-context-reward]. By carefully designing these frictions, the authors suggest that it may be possible to strike a balance between preserving the language model's capabilities and mitigating its potential negative impacts.
Technical Explanation
The paper explores the concept of "frictions" as a means of modulating the experiences of language models. Frictions refer to deliberate design choices that introduce obstacles or constraints into the language model's interactions with users, shaping the user's experience in specific ways.
The authors present a case study that demonstrates the application of selective frictions to address a range of issues, including:
-
[relying-unreliable-impact-language-models-reluctance-to]: Frictions could be used to prompt users for additional context or clarification before the model generates a response, reducing the risk of relying on unreliable information.
-
[policy-improvement-using-language-feedback-models]: Frictions could be implemented to require users to acknowledge certain caveats or limitations before proceeding, encouraging them to think critically about the model's outputs and potentially improving policy decisions.
-
[can-language-model-moderators-improve-health-online]: Frictions could be used to limit the model's ability to generate certain types of content, such as explicit or harmful material, helping to improve the overall health and safety of online communities.
-
[apprentices-to-research-assistants-advancing-research-large]: Frictions could be designed to guide users through a structured process of interaction, enabling language models to serve as more effective research assistants and advancing collaborative research efforts.
-
[feedback-loops-language-models-drive-context-reward]: Frictions could be used to interrupt or modify the feedback loops that can drive language models to generate content that aligns with specific contexts or rewards, potentially mitigating the risk of undesirable feedback loops.
The authors suggest that by carefully designing and applying these frictions, it may be possible to strike a balance between preserving the language model's core capabilities and mitigating its potential negative impacts.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a novel and promising approach to addressing the challenges associated with the widespread use of language models. By introducing frictions, the authors aim to shape the user's experience in ways that can mitigate undesirable outcomes while preserving the models' capabilities.
One potential limitation of the approach is the risk of over-constraining the language model's interactions, potentially limiting its usefulness or reducing user engagement. The authors acknowledge this challenge and suggest that the design of frictions should be carefully considered to strike the right balance.
Additionally, the paper does not provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed frictions in addressing the identified issues. Further research and empirical validation would be valuable to assess the real-world impact of this approach.
Another area for potential exploration is the interaction between different types of frictions and their collective impact on the user experience. Investigating how various frictions can be combined or sequenced to achieve specific outcomes could yield valuable insights.
Overall, the paper presents a thought-provoking and potentially impactful approach to mitigating the negative consequences of language model use. By encouraging critical thinking and introducing targeted constraints, the authors suggest that it may be possible to harness the power of these models while minimizing their risks.
Conclusion
This paper explores the use of "frictions" as a means of modulating the experiences of language models, aiming to mitigate undesirable outcomes while preserving their core capabilities. The authors present a case study demonstrating how selective frictions can be applied to address a range of issues, including concerns around [relying-unreliable-impact-language-models-reluctance-to], [policy-improvement-using-language-feedback-models], [can-language-model-moderators-improve-health-online], [apprentices-to-research-assistants-advancing-research-large], and [feedback-loops-language-models-drive-context-reward].
By carefully designing and implementing these frictions, the paper suggests that it may be possible to strike a balance between the benefits and risks associated with the widespread use of language models. While further research and validation are needed, this approach represents a promising direction for addressing the complex challenges posed by these powerful AI systems.
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
Modulating Language Model Experiences through Frictions
Katherine M. Collins, Valerie Chen, Ilia Sucholutsky, Hannah Rose Kirk, Malak Sadek, Holli Sargeant, Ameet Talwalkar, Adrian Weller, Umang Bhatt
Language models are transforming the ways that their users engage with the world. Despite impressive capabilities, over-consumption of language model outputs risks propagating unchecked errors in the short-term and damaging human capabilities for critical thinking in the long-term, particularly in knowledge-based tasks. How can we develop scaffolding around language models to curate more appropriate use? We propose selective frictions for language model experiences, inspired by behavioral science interventions, to dampen misuse. Frictions involve small modifications to a user's experience, e.g., the addition of a button impeding model access and reminding a user of their expertise relative to the model. Through a user study with real humans, we observe shifts in user behavior from the imposition of a friction over LLMs in the context of a multi-topic question-answering task as a representative task that people may use LLMs for, e.g., in education and information retrieval. We find that frictions modulate over-reliance by driving down users' click rates while minimally affecting accuracy for those topics. Yet, frictions may have unintended effects. We find marked differences in users' click behaviors even on topics where frictions were not provisioned. Our contributions motivate further study of human-AI behavioral interaction to inform more effective and appropriate LLM use.
Read more7/19/2024
0
Relying on the Unreliable: The Impact of Language Models' Reluctance to Express Uncertainty
Kaitlyn Zhou, Jena D. Hwang, Xiang Ren, Maarten Sap
As natural language becomes the default interface for human-AI interaction, there is a need for LMs to appropriately communicate uncertainties in downstream applications. In this work, we investigate how LMs incorporate confidence in responses via natural language and how downstream users behave in response to LM-articulated uncertainties. We examine publicly deployed models and find that LMs are reluctant to express uncertainties when answering questions even when they produce incorrect responses. LMs can be explicitly prompted to express confidences, but tend to be overconfident, resulting in high error rates (an average of 47%) among confident responses. We test the risks of LM overconfidence by conducting human experiments and show that users rely heavily on LM generations, whether or not they are marked by certainty. Lastly, we investigate the preference-annotated datasets used in post training alignment and find that humans are biased against texts with uncertainty. Our work highlights new safety harms facing human-LM interactions and proposes design recommendations and mitigating strategies moving forward.
Read more7/11/2024
0
New!Quantitative Insights into Language Model Usage and Trust in Academia: An Empirical Study
Minseok Jung, Aurora Zhang, Junho Lee, Paul Pu Liang
Language models (LMs) are revolutionizing knowledge retrieval and processing in academia. However, concerns regarding their misuse and erroneous outputs, such as hallucinations and fabrications, are reasons for distrust in LMs within academic communities. Consequently, there is a pressing need to deepen the understanding of how actual practitioners use and trust these models. There is a notable gap in quantitative evidence regarding the extent of LM usage, user trust in their outputs, and issues to prioritize for real-world development. This study addresses these gaps by providing data and analysis of LM usage and trust. Specifically, our study surveyed 125 individuals at a private school and secured 88 data points after pre-processing. Through both quantitative analysis and qualitative evidence, we found a significant variation in trust levels, which are strongly related to usage time and frequency. Additionally, we discover through a polling process that fact-checking is the most critical issue limiting usage. These findings inform several actionable insights: distrust can be overcome by providing exposure to the models, policies should be developed that prioritize fact-checking, and user trust can be enhanced by increasing engagement. By addressing these critical gaps, this research not only adds to the understanding of user experiences and trust in LMs but also informs the development of more effective LMs.
Read more9/17/2024
0
Policy Improvement using Language Feedback Models
Victor Zhong, Dipendra Misra, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre C^ot'e
We introduce Language Feedback Models (LFMs) that identify desirable behaviour - actions that help achieve tasks specified in the instruction - for imitation learning in instruction following. To train LFMs, we obtain feedback from Large Language Models (LLMs) on visual trajectories verbalized to language descriptions. First, by using LFMs to identify desirable behaviour to imitate, we improve in task-completion rate over strong behavioural cloning baselines on three distinct language grounding environments (Touchdown, ScienceWorld, and ALFWorld). Second, LFMs outperform using LLMs as experts to directly predict actions, when controlling for the number of LLM output tokens. Third, LFMs generalize to unseen environments, improving task-completion rate by 3.5-12.0% through one round of adaptation. Finally, LFM can be modified to provide human-interpretable feedback without performance loss, allowing human verification of desirable behaviour for imitation learning.
Read more4/22/2024