Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Apolitical Intelligence? Auditing Delphi's responses on controversial political issues in the US

Published 22 Jun 2023 in cs.CY, cs.AI, and cs.CL | (2306.13000v1)

Abstract: As generative LLMs are deployed in ever-wider contexts, concerns about their political values have come to the forefront with critique from all parts of the political spectrum that the models are biased and lack neutrality. However, the question of what neutrality is and whether it is desirable remains underexplored. In this paper, I examine neutrality through an audit of Delphi [arXiv:2110.07574], a LLM designed for crowdsourced ethics. I analyse how Delphi responds to politically controversial questions compared to different US political subgroups. I find that Delphi is poorly calibrated with respect to confidence and exhibits a significant political skew. Based on these results, I examine the question of neutrality from a data-feminist lens, in terms of how notions of neutrality shift power and further marginalise unheard voices. These findings can hopefully contribute to a more reflexive debate about the normative questions of alignment and what role we want generative models to play in society.

Authors (1)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (85)
  1. Persistent anti-muslim bias in large language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 298–306.
  2. John R. Anderson. 2005. Cognitive psychology and its implications. Macmillan.
  3. A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment. http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.00861 arXiv:2112.00861 [cs].
  4. Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. http://arxiv.org/abs/2204.05862 arXiv:2204.05862 [cs].
  5. Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback. http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.08073 arXiv:2212.08073 [cs].
  6. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 610–623.
  7. Marcel Binz and Eric Schulz. 2022. Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14576 (2022).
  8. The Values Encoded in Machine Learning Research. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533083
  9. Grant Blank. 2017. The digital divide among Twitter users and its implications for social research. Social Science Computer Review 35, 6 (2017), 679–697. Publisher: SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
  10. Grant Blank and Darja Groselj. 2015. Digital divide| Examining internet use through a Weberian lens. International Journal of Communication 9 (2015), 21.
  11. Grant Blank and Christoph Lutz. 2017. Representativeness of social media in great britain: investigating Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, Pinterest, Google+, and Instagram. American Behavioral Scientist 61, 7 (2017), 741–756. Publisher: Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
  12. Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of “Bias” in NLP. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 5454–5476. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.485
  13. Looking for a Handsome Carpenter! Debiasing GPT-3 Job Advertisements. http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11374 arXiv:2205.11374 [cs].
  14. Nick Bostrom. 2017. Superintelligence. Dunod.
  15. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165 (2020).
  16. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 77–91. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html ISSN: 2640-3498.
  17. Jenna Burrell. 2016. How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society 3, 1 (June 2016), 2053951715622512. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  18. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science 356, 6334 (April 2017), 183–186. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4230 Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  19. How generative AI & ChatGPT will change business. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/generative-ai-is-here-how-tools-like-chatgpt-could-change-your-business
  20. Patricia Hill Collins. 2022. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. routledge.
  21. Andrew Crocker and Camille Fischer. 2019. Victory! Ruling in hiQ v. Linkedin Protects Scraping of Public Data. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/09/victory-ruling-hiq-v-linkedin-protects-scraping-public-data
  22. Goal misgeneralization in deep reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 12004–12019.
  23. Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren Klein. 2020a. 2. Collect, Analyze, Imagine, Teach. Data Feminism (March 2020). https://data-feminism.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/ei7cogfn/release/4
  24. Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren Klein. 2020b. 4. “What Gets Counted Counts”. Data Feminism (March 2020). https://data-feminism.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/h1w0nbqp/release/3
  25. Catherine D’Ignazio and Lauren Klein. 2020c. Data Feminism. MIT Press. https://data-feminism.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/vi8obxh7/release/4
  26. Moral stories: Situated reasoning about norms, intents, actions, and their consequences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15738 (2020).
  27. Truthful AI: Developing and governing AI that does not lie. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.06674 (2021).
  28. Social chemistry 101: Learning to reason about social and moral norms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.00620 (2020).
  29. Iason Gabriel. 2020. Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignment. Minds and Machines 30, 3 (Sept. 2020), 411–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09539-2 arXiv: 2001.09768.
  30. Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07858 (2022).
  31. Statement from the listed authors of Stochastic Parrots on the “AI pause” letter. https://www.dair-institute.org/blog/letter-statement-March2023
  32. Lisa Gitelman and Virginia Jackson. 2013. Introduction: Raw data is an oxymoron. Raw data is an oxymoron (2013), 1–15. Publisher: MIT Press Cambridge.
  33. Generative Language Models and Automated Influence Operations: Emerging Threats and Potential Mitigations. http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.04246 arXiv:2301.04246 [cs].
  34. YouTube, The Great Radicalizer? Auditing and Mitigating Ideological Biases in YouTube Recommendations. http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.10666 arXiv:2203.10666 [cs].
  35. The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT’s pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation. SSRN Electronic Journal (2023). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4316084
  36. Aligning ai with shared human values. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.02275 (2020).
  37. Bernie Hogan. 2022. From Social Science to Data Science: Key Data Collection and Analysis Skills in Python. SAGE.
  38. XTREME: A Massively Multilingual Multi-task Benchmark for Evaluating Cross-lingual Generalisation. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 4411–4421. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/hu20b.html ISSN: 2640-3498.
  39. Social biases in NLP models as barriers for persons with disabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00813 (2020).
  40. Modeling Controversy within Populations. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval. ACM, Amsterdam The Netherlands, 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1145/3121050.3121067
  41. janus. 2022. Mysteries of mode collapse. https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/t9svvNPNmFf5Qa3TA/mysteries-of-mode-collapse
  42. Nathalie Japkowicz and Shaju Stephen. 2002. The class imbalance problem: A systematic study. Intelligent Data Analysis 6, 5 (Nov. 2002), 429–449. https://doi.org/10.3233/IDA-2002-6504
  43. Can Machines Learn Morality? The Delphi Experiment. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.07574 arXiv:2110.07574 [cs].
  44. Pratyusha Kalluri. 2020. Don’t ask if artificial intelligence is good or fair, ask how it shifts power. Nature 583, 7815 (July 2020), 169–169. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02003-2 Bandiera_abtest: a Cg_type: World View Number: 7815 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Subject_term: Research data, Research management, Society, Ethics.
  45. Sal Khan. 2023. H arnessing GPT-4 so that all students benefit. A nonprofit approach for equal access! https://blog.khanacademy.org/harnessing-ai-so-that-all-students-benefit-a-nonprofit-approach-for-equal-access/
  46. Personalisation within bounds: A risk taxonomy and policy framework for the alignment of large language models with personalised feedback. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.05453 arXiv:2303.05453 [cs].
  47. Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digital Health 2, 2 (Feb. 2023), e0000198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 Publisher: Public Library of Science.
  48. J. Alexander Lawrence and Kristina Ehle. 2019. Combatting unauthorized webscraping-the remaining options in the United States for owners of public websites despite the recent hiQ labs v. LinkedIn decision. Computer Law Review International 20, 6 (2019), 171–174. Publisher: Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt.
  49. Unicorn on rainbow: A universal commonsense reasoning model on a new multitask benchmark. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35. 13480–13488. Issue: 15.
  50. Li Lucy and David Bamman. 2021. Gender and representation bias in GPT-3 generated stories. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Narrative Understanding. 48–55.
  51. Gary Marcus. 2018. Deep learning: A critical appraisal. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00631
  52. Stefania Milan and Emiliano Treré. 2019. Big Data from the South(s): Beyond Data Universalism. Television & New Media 20, 4 (May 2019), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419837739 Publisher: SAGE Publications.
  53. Alex Mitchell. 2023. ChatGPT’s bias allows hate speech toward GOP, men: report. New York Post (March 2023). https://nypost.com/2023/03/14/chatgpts-bias-allows-hate-speech-toward-gop-men-report/
  54. Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligence. Philosophy & Technology 33, 4 (Dec. 2020), 659–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00405-8
  55. Auditing large language models: a three-layered approach. http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.08500 arXiv:2302.08500 [cs].
  56. Neel Nanda and Tom Lieberum. 2022. A mechanistic interpretability analysis of grokking. In Alignment Forum.
  57. The alignment problem from a deep learning perspective. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.00626 arXiv:2209.00626 [cs].
  58. Gerd Niestegge. 1990. The ‘leaky bucket’ policing method in the ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) network. International Journal of Digital & Analog Communication Systems 3, 2 (1990), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.4510030214 _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/dac.4510030214.
  59. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science 366, 6464 (Oct. 2019), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax2342 Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  60. OpenAI. 2022. ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/
  61. OpenAI. 2023a. GPT-4 Technical Report. Technical Report. https://cdn.openai.com/papers/gpt-4.pdf
  62. OpenAI. 2023b. How should AI systems behave, and who should decide? https://openai.com/blog/how-should-ai-systems-behave/
  63. George Orwell and Keith Gessen. 2009. All art is propaganda: critical essays. HarperCollins.
  64. Accounting for political opinions, power, and influence: A Voting Advice Application. European Journal of Operational Research 266, 2 (April 2018), 702–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.09.031
  65. Caroline Criado Perez. 2019. Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men. Abrams.
  66. Martijn Pieters. 2021. aiolimiter. https://github.com/mjpieters/aiolimiter original-date: 2019-11-30.
  67. Characteristics of harmful text: Towards rigorous benchmarking of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.08325 (2022).
  68. John Rawls. 1951. Outline of a decision procedure for ethics. The philosophical review 60, 2 (1951), 177–197.
  69. Laria Reynolds and Kyle McDonell. 2021. Prompt Programming for Large Language Models: Beyond the Few-Shot Paradigm. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3451760
  70. Everett M. Rogers. 2001. The Digital Divide. Convergence 7, 4 (Dec. 2001), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/135485650100700406 Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  71. Who are the crowdworkers?: shifting demographics in mechanical turk. In CHI ’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Atlanta Georgia USA, 2863–2872. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1753873
  72. Cynthia Rudin. 2019. Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead. arXiv:1811.10154 [cs, stat] (Sept. 2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.10154 arXiv: 1811.10154.
  73. Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. Data and discrimination: converting critical concerns into productive inquiry 22 (2014), 4349–4357.
  74. Social bias frames: Reasoning about social and power implications of language. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.03891 (2019).
  75. Robustness of linear mixed‐effects models to violations of distributional assumptions. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 11, 9 (Sept. 2020), 1141–1152. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13434
  76. Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Atlanta GA USA, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598
  77. Claude E. Shannon. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal 27, 3 (1948), 379–423. Publisher: Nokia Bell Labs.
  78. Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04615 arXiv:2206.04615 [cs, stat].
  79. Teo Susnjak. 2022. ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity? arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09292 (2022).
  80. A Word on Machine Ethics: A Response to Jiang et al. (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2111.04158 arXiv:2111.04158 [cs].
  81. J. Eric T. Taylor and Graham W. Taylor. 2021. Artificial cognition: How experimental psychology can help generate explainable artificial intelligence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 28, 2 (2021), 454–475. Publisher: Springer.
  82. James Vincent. 2021. The AI oracle of Delphi uses the problems of Reddit to offer dubious moral advice. The Verge (Oct. 2021). https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/20/22734215/ai-ask-delphi-moral-ethical-judgement-demo
  83. Danielle Wallace. 2023. ChatGPT ’woke bias’: AI program cheers Biden, not Trump; defines woman as ’gender identity,’ rips fossil fuels. https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/chatgpt-woke-bias-ai-program-cheers-biden-not-trump-defines-woman-gender-identity-rips-fossil-fuels Publisher: Fox Business.
  84. Taxonomy of Risks posed by Language Models. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. ACM, Seoul Republic of Korea, 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533088
  85. The most controversial topics in Wikipedia. Global Wikipedia: International and cross-cultural issues in online collaboration 25 (2014), 25–48.

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.