Towards Dialogues for Joint Human-AI Reasoning and Value Alignment
0
🤯
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper discusses the potential for dialogues between humans and AI systems to enable joint reasoning and align their values.
- The authors argue that such dialogues could help overcome challenges in developing AI systems that reliably share human values and engage in cooperative problem-solving.
- They propose research directions for designing and evaluating dialogue-based approaches to human-AI collaboration and value alignment.
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores the idea of having conversations between humans and AI systems as a way to help ensure the AI behaves in alignment with human values. The authors believe that engaging in dialogues could be a more effective approach than just trying to program the AI to behave a certain way.
Having a back-and-forth dialogue allows the human and AI to better understand each other's perspectives and work together to solve problems. This could help the AI system develop a more nuanced and reliable grasp of what humans value, rather than just trying to follow a set of predefined rules.
The authors suggest different research directions for designing these kinds of human-AI dialogues and evaluating how well they work for aligning the AI's behavior with human values. They see this as a promising avenue for overcoming some of the key challenges in developing AI systems that are truly cooperative and beneficial to humanity.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes that dialogues between humans and AI systems could be a valuable approach for achieving value alignment - ensuring the AI behaves in ways that are consistent with human values and goals.
The authors argue that current efforts to program AI systems with predetermined values have limitations, and that interactive dialogues could allow for more nuanced and robust value alignment. By engaging in back-and-forth conversations, humans and AI could develop a shared understanding and collaborate to solve problems in ways that uphold human values.
The paper outlines several key research directions for this approach, including how to design effective human-AI dialogues and how to evaluate the degree of value alignment achieved through these interactions.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a compelling high-level vision for using human-AI dialogues as a path towards value alignment. However, the authors acknowledge that significant challenges remain in terms of actually implementing such an approach in practice.
For example, they note that it may be difficult to ensure the AI system engages in truly open-ended and cooperative dialogue, rather than simply deferring to the human's preferences. There are also open questions about how to robustly encode and reason about complex human values in a dialogue context.
Additionally, the paper does not delve into potential downsides or risks of this approach, such as the possibility of humans inadvertently instilling problematic values in the AI through flawed reasoning or miscommunication during the dialogues.
Overall, the ideas presented are thought-provoking, but would require substantial further research and development to demonstrate their practical feasibility and safety for real-world deployment of AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper argues that enabling dialogues between humans and AI systems could be a powerful approach for aligning AI behavior with human values. The authors believe this interactive, collaborative approach has advantages over simply programming the AI with a predetermined set of values.
By engaging in back-and-forth conversations, the human and AI could develop a shared understanding and cooperatively solve problems in a way that upholds human values. The paper outlines several key research directions for designing and evaluating such dialogue-based approaches to human-AI collaboration and value alignment.
While the vision is compelling, significant technical and safety challenges remain to be addressed. Further research is needed to demonstrate the practical feasibility and reliability of this approach for developing AI systems that reliably behave in alignment with human values.
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
Towards Dialogues for Joint Human-AI Reasoning and Value Alignment
Elfia Bezou-Vrakatseli, Oana Cocarascu, Sanjay Modgil
We argue that enabling human-AI dialogue, purposed to support joint reasoning (i.e., 'inquiry'), is important for ensuring that AI decision making is aligned with human values and preferences. In particular, we point to logic-based models of argumentation and dialogue, and suggest that the traditional focus on persuasion dialogues be replaced by a focus on inquiry dialogues, and the distinct challenges that joint inquiry raises. Given recent dramatic advances in the performance of large language models (LLMs), and the anticipated increase in their use for decision making, we provide a roadmap for research into inquiry dialogues for supporting joint human-LLM reasoning tasks that are ethically salient, and that thereby require that decisions are value aligned.
Read more5/29/2024
❗
0
Decision-Oriented Dialogue for Human-AI Collaboration
Jessy Lin, Nicholas Tomlin, Jacob Andreas, Jason Eisner
We describe a class of tasks called decision-oriented dialogues, in which AI assistants such as large language models (LMs) must collaborate with one or more humans via natural language to help them make complex decisions. We formalize three domains in which users face everyday decisions: (1) choosing an assignment of reviewers to conference papers, (2) planning a multi-step itinerary in a city, and (3) negotiating travel plans for a group of friends. In each of these settings, AI assistants and users have disparate abilities that they must combine to arrive at the best decision: assistants can access and process large amounts of information, while users have preferences and constraints external to the system. For each task, we build a dialogue environment where agents receive a reward based on the quality of the final decision they reach. We evaluate LMs in self-play and in collaboration with humans and find that they fall short compared to human assistants, achieving much lower rewards despite engaging in longer dialogues. We highlight a number of challenges models face in decision-oriented dialogues, ranging from goal-directed behavior to reasoning and optimization, and release our environments as a testbed for future work.
Read more5/7/2024
🌀
0
Approximating Human Models During Argumentation-based Dialogues
Yinxu Tang, Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh
Explainable AI Planning (XAIP) aims to develop AI agents that can effectively explain their decisions and actions to human users, fostering trust and facilitating human-AI collaboration. A key challenge in XAIP is model reconciliation, which seeks to align the mental models of AI agents and humans. While existing approaches often assume a known and deterministic human model, this simplification may not capture the complexities and uncertainties of real-world interactions. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that enables AI agents to learn and update a probabilistic human model through argumentation-based dialogues. Our approach incorporates trust-based and certainty-based update mechanisms, allowing the agent to refine its understanding of the human's mental state based on the human's expressed trust in the agent's arguments and certainty in their own arguments. We employ a probability weighting function inspired by prospect theory to capture the relationship between trust and perceived probability, and use a Bayesian approach to update the agent's probability distribution over possible human models. We conduct a human-subject study to empirically evaluate the effectiveness of our approach in an argumentation scenario, demonstrating its ability to capture the dynamics of human belief formation and adaptation.
Read more5/30/2024
🤖
0
Beyond Prompts: Learning from Human Communication for Enhanced AI Intent Alignment
Yoonsu Kim, Kihoon Son, Seoyoung Kim, Juho Kim
AI intent alignment, ensuring that AI produces outcomes as intended by users, is a critical challenge in human-AI interaction. The emergence of generative AI, including LLMs, has intensified the significance of this problem, as interactions increasingly involve users specifying desired results for AI systems. In order to support better AI intent alignment, we aim to explore human strategies for intent specification in human-human communication. By studying and comparing human-human and human-LLM communication, we identify key strategies that can be applied to the design of AI systems that are more effective at understanding and aligning with user intent. This study aims to advance toward a human-centered AI system by bringing together human communication strategies for the design of AI systems.
Read more5/10/2024