Generating Place-Based Compromises Between Two Points of View

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel academically but struggle with social intelligence tasks, such as creating good compromises. In this paper, we present methods for generating empathically neutral compromises between two opposing viewpoints. We first compared four different prompt engineering methods using Claude 3 Opus and a dataset of 2,400 contrasting views on shared places. A subset of the gen erated compromises was evaluated for acceptability in a 50-participant study. We found that the best method for generating compromises between two views used external empathic similarity between a compromise and each viewpoint as iterative feedback, outperforming stan dard Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning. The results indicate that the use of empathic neutrality improves the acceptability of compromises. The dataset of generated compromises was then used to train two smaller foundation models via margin-based alignment of human preferences, improving efficiency and removing the need for empathy estimation during inference.

AI generates well-liked but templatic empathic responses

Recent research shows that greater numbers of people are turning to Large Language Models (LLMs) for emotional support, and that people rate LLM responses as more empathic than human-written responses. We suggest a reason for this success: LLMs have learned and consistently deploy a well-liked template for expressing empathy. We develop a taxonomy of 10 empathic language "tactics" that include validating someone's feelings and paraphrasing, and apply this taxonomy to characterize the language that people and LLMs produce when writing empathic responses. Across a set of 2 studies comparing a total of n = 3,265 AI-generated (by six models) and n = 1,290 human-written responses, we find that LLM responses are highly formulaic at a discourse functional level. We discovered a template -- a structured sequence of tactics -- that matches between 83--90% of LLM responses (and 60--83\% in a held out sample), and when those are matched, covers 81--92% of the response. By contrast, human-written responses are more diverse. We end with a discussion of implications for the future of AI-generated empathy.