Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits

General purpose AI, such as ChatGPT, seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. However, the governance and development of AI still remain in the hands of a few, and the pace of development is accelerating without proper assessment of risks. As a first step towards democratic governance and risk assessment of AI, we introduce Particip-AI, a framework to gather current and future AI use cases and their harms and benefits from non-expert public. Our framework allows us to study more nuanced and detailed public opinions on AI through collecting use cases, surfacing diverse harms through risk assessment under alternate scenarios (i.e., developing and not developing a use case), and illuminating tensions over AI development through making a concluding choice on its development. To showcase the promise of our framework towards guiding democratic AI, we gather responses from 295 demographically diverse participants. We find that participants' responses emphasize applications for personal life and society, contrasting with most current AI development's business focus. This shows the value of surfacing diverse harms that are complementary to expert assessments. Furthermore, we found that perceived impact of not developing use cases predicted participants' judgements of whether AI use cases should be developed, and highlighted lay users' concerns of techno-solutionism. We conclude with a discussion on how frameworks like Particip-AI can further guide democratic AI governance and regulation.

SOTOPIA-$π$: Interactive Learning of Socially Intelligent Language Agents

Humans learn social skills through both imitation and social interaction. This social learning process is largely understudied by existing research on building language agents. Motivated by this gap, we propose an interactive learning method, SOTOPIA-$\pi$, improving the social intelligence of language agents. This method leverages behavior cloning and self-reinforcement training on filtered social interaction data according to large language model (LLM) ratings. We show that our training method allows a 7B LLM to reach the social goal completion ability of an expert model (GPT-4-based agent), while improving the safety of language agents and maintaining general QA ability on the MMLU benchmark. We also find that this training paradigm uncovers some difficulties in LLM-based evaluation of social intelligence: LLM-based evaluators overestimate the abilities of the language agents trained specifically for social interaction.

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? The Misleading Success of Simulating Social Interactions With LLMs

Recent advances in large language models (LLM) have enabled richer social simulations, allowing for the study of various social phenomena with LLM-based agents. However, most work has used an omniscient perspective on these simulations (e.g., single LLM to generate all interlocutors), which is fundamentally at odds with the non-omniscient, information asymmetric interactions that humans have. To examine these differences, we develop an evaluation framework to simulate social interactions with LLMs in various settings (omniscient, non-omniscient). Our experiments show that interlocutors simulated omnisciently are much more successful at accomplishing social goals compared to non-omniscient agents, despite the latter being the more realistic setting. Furthermore, we demonstrate that learning from omniscient simulations improves the apparent naturalness of interactions but scarcely enhances goal achievement in cooperative scenarios. Our findings indicate that addressing information asymmetry remains a fundamental challenge for LLM-based agents.

Relying on the Unreliable: The Impact of Language Models' Reluctance to Express Uncertainty

As natural language becomes the default interface for human-AI interaction, there is a critical need for LMs to appropriately communicate uncertainties in downstream applications. In this work, we investigate how LMs incorporate confidence about their 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 unable 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 (on average 47%) among confident responses. We test the risks of LM overconfidence by running 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 RLHF alignment and find that humans have a bias against texts with uncertainty. Our work highlights a new set of safety harms facing human-LM interactions and proposes design recommendations and mitigating strategies moving forward.

Riveter: Measuring Power and Social Dynamics Between Entities

Riveter provides a complete easy-to-use pipeline for analyzing verb connotations associated with entities in text corpora. We prepopulate the package with connotation frames of sentiment, power, and agency, which have demonstrated usefulness for capturing social phenomena, such as gender bias, in a broad range of corpora. For decades, lexical frameworks have been foundational tools in computational social science, digital humanities, and natural language processing, facilitating multifaceted analysis of text corpora. But working with verb-centric lexica specifically requires natural language processing skills, reducing their accessibility to other researchers. By organizing the language processing pipeline, providing complete lexicon scores and visualizations for all entities in a corpus, and providing functionality for users to target specific research questions, Riveter greatly improves the accessibility of verb lexica and can facilitate a broad range of future research.

Where Do People Tell Stories Online? Story Detection Across Online Communities

People share stories online for a myriad of purposes, whether as a means of self-disclosure, processing difficult personal experiences, providing needed information or entertainment, or persuading others to share their beliefs. Better understanding of online storytelling can illuminate the dynamics of social movements, sensemaking practices, persuasion strategies, and more. However, unlike other media such as books and visual content where the narrative nature of the content is often overtly signaled at the document level, studying storytelling in online communities is challenging due to the mixture of storytelling and non-storytelling behavior, which can be interspersed within documents and across diverse topics and settings. We introduce a codebook and create the Storytelling in Online Communities Corpus, an expert-annotated dataset of 502 English-language posts and comments with labeled story and event spans. Using our corpus, we train and evaluate an online story detection model, which we use to investigate the role storytelling of in different social contexts. We identify distinctive features of online storytelling, the prevalence of storytelling among different communities, and the conversational patterns of storytelling.

Beyond Denouncing Hate: Strategies for Countering Implied Biases and Stereotypes in Language

Counterspeech, i.e., responses to counteract potential harms of hateful speech, has become an increasingly popular solution to address online hate speech without censorship. However, properly countering hateful language requires countering and dispelling the underlying inaccurate stereotypes implied by such language. In this work, we draw from psychology and philosophy literature to craft six psychologically inspired strategies to challenge the underlying stereotypical implications of hateful language. We first examine the convincingness of each of these strategies through a user study, and then compare their usages in both human- and machine-generated counterspeech datasets. Our results show that human-written counterspeech uses countering strategies that are more specific to the implied stereotype (e.g., counter examples to the stereotype, external factors about the stereotype's origins), whereas machine-generated counterspeech uses less specific strategies (e.g., generally denouncing the hatefulness of speech). Furthermore, machine-generated counterspeech often employs strategies that humans deem less convincing compared to human-produced counterspeech. Our findings point to the importance of accounting for the underlying stereotypical implications of speech when generating counterspeech and for better machine reasoning about anti-stereotypical examples.

FANToM: A Benchmark for Stress-testing Machine Theory of Mind in Interactions

Theory of mind (ToM) evaluations currently focus on testing models using passive narratives that inherently lack interactivity. We introduce FANToM, a new benchmark designed to stress-test ToM within information-asymmetric conversational contexts via question answering. Our benchmark draws upon important theoretical requisites from psychology and necessary empirical considerations when evaluating large language models (LLMs). In particular, we formulate multiple types of questions that demand the same underlying reasoning to identify illusory or false sense of ToM capabilities in LLMs. We show that FANToM is challenging for state-of-the-art LLMs, which perform significantly worse than humans even with chain-of-thought reasoning or fine-tuning.

Can LLMs Keep a Secret? Testing Privacy Implications of Language Models via Contextual Integrity Theory

The interactive use of large language models (LLMs) in AI assistants (at work, home, etc.) introduces a new set of inference-time privacy risks: LLMs are fed different types of information from multiple sources in their inputs and are expected to reason about what to share in their outputs, for what purpose and with whom, within a given context. In this work, we draw attention to the highly critical yet overlooked notion of contextual privacy by proposing ConfAIde, a benchmark designed to identify critical weaknesses in the privacy reasoning capabilities of instruction-tuned LLMs. Our experiments show that even the most capable models such as GPT-4 and ChatGPT reveal private information in contexts that humans would not, 39% and 57% of the time, respectively. This leakage persists even when we employ privacy-inducing prompts or chain-of-thought reasoning. Our work underscores the immediate need to explore novel inference-time privacy-preserving approaches, based on reasoning and theory of mind.