Quantitative Insights into Language Model Usage and Trust in Academia: An Empirical Study
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Provides quantitative insights into language model usage and trust in academia
- Explores how academic researchers and students perceive and utilize language models
- Examines factors that influence trust and adoption of language models in academic settings
Plain English Explanation
This research study investigates how academic researchers and students are using and perceiving language models, such as those used for text generation or language understanding. The researchers conducted surveys and interviews to understand the factors that influence trust and adoption of these AI-powered language tools in academic settings.
Technical Explanation
The researchers used a mixed-methods approach, combining surveys and semi-structured interviews, to gather quantitative and qualitative data on language model usage and trust among academic researchers and students. The survey included questions about participants' familiarity with language models, their perceived benefits and limitations, and the factors that influence their trust and willingness to use these tools. The interviews further explored participants' experiences, attitudes, and concerns regarding language model usage in academic work.
The study found that while many participants recognized the potential benefits of language models, there were also significant concerns about reliability, bias, and the ethical implications of using these tools. Factors such as transparency, explainability, and the ability to validate outputs were identified as important for building trust in language models. The researchers also highlighted the need for clear guidelines and best practices to support the responsible and effective use of language models in academic contexts.
Critical Analysis
The study provides valuable insights into the complex and nuanced perspectives of academic researchers and students towards language models. However, the research is limited to a specific academic population, and the findings may not necessarily generalize to other contexts or user groups. Additionally, the study relies on self-reported data, which can be subject to biases and limitations.
Further research could explore the perspectives of other stakeholders, such as academic administrators, policymakers, and the general public, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the societal implications of language model usage in academia. Longitudinal studies could also shed light on how perceptions and adoption patterns may evolve over time as language models continue to advance and become more prevalent.
Conclusion
This study offers an important empirical contribution to the ongoing discussion around the use of language models in academic settings. By highlighting the factors that influence trust and adoption, the findings can inform the development of responsible guidelines and best practices to support the ethical and effective integration of these powerful AI tools within the academic community.
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
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
I don't trust you (anymore)! -- The effect of students' LLM use on Lecturer-Student-Trust in Higher Education
Simon Kloker, Matthew Bazanya, Twaha Kateete
Trust plays a pivotal role in Lecturer-Student-Collaboration, encompassing teaching and research aspects. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) in platforms like Open AI's ChatGPT, coupled with their cost-effectiveness and high-quality results, has led to their rapid adoption among university students. However, discerning genuine student input from LLM-generated output poses a challenge for lecturers. This dilemma jeopardizes the trust relationship between lecturers and students, potentially impacting university downstream activities, particularly collaborative research initiatives. Despite attempts to establish guidelines for student LLM use, a clear framework mutually beneficial for lecturers and students in higher education remains elusive. This study addresses the research question: How does the use of LLMs by students impact Informational and Procedural Justice, influencing Team Trust and Expected Team Performance? Methodically, we applied a quantitative construct-based survey, evaluated using techniques of Structural Equation Modelling (PLS- SEM) to examine potential relationships among these constructs. Our findings based on 23 valid respondents from Ndejje University indicate that lecturers are less concerned about the fairness of LLM use per se but are more focused on the transparency of student utilization, which significantly influences Team Trust positively. This research contributes to the global discourse on integrating and regulating LLMs and subsequent models in education. We propose that guidelines should support LLM use while enforcing transparency in Lecturer-Student- Collaboration to foster Team Trust and Performance. The study contributes valuable insights for shaping policies enabling ethical and transparent LLMs usage in education to ensure effectiveness of collaborative learning environments.
Read more6/24/2024
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
I'm Not Sure, But...: Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust
Sunnie S. Y. Kim, Q. Vera Liao, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Stephanie Ballard, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan
Widely deployed large language models (LLMs) can produce convincing yet incorrect outputs, potentially misleading users who may rely on them as if they were correct. To reduce such overreliance, there have been calls for LLMs to communicate their uncertainty to end users. However, there has been little empirical work examining how users perceive and act upon LLMs' expressions of uncertainty. We explore this question through a large-scale, pre-registered, human-subject experiment (N=404) in which participants answer medical questions with or without access to responses from a fictional LLM-infused search engine. Using both behavioral and self-reported measures, we examine how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions (e.g., I'm not sure, but...) decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. An exploratory analysis suggests that this increase can be attributed to reduced (but not fully eliminated) overreliance on incorrect answers. While we observe similar effects for uncertainty expressed from a general perspective (e.g., It's not clear, but...), these effects are weaker and not statistically significant. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters. This highlights the importance of user testing before deploying LLMs at scale.
Read more5/16/2024