Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Other

Cited by

300 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 7 of them have a page here, 293 not yet.

• Marked Personas: Using Natural Language Prompts to Measure Stereotypes in Language Models
• Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Models
• Not what you've signed up for: Compromising Real-World LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection
• Having Beer after Prayer? Measuring Cultural Bias in Large Language Models
• Children's English Reading Story Generation via Supervised Fine-Tuning of Compact LLMs with Controllable Difficulty and Safety
• A Roadmap to Pluralistic Alignment
• Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2303.17548 · arXiv 2303.17548

@misc{santurkar2023whose,
  title = {{Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?}},
  author = {Santurkar, Shibani and Durmus, Esin and Ladhak, Faisal and Lee, Cinoo and Liang, Percy and Hashimoto, Tatsunori},
  year = {2023},
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2303.17548},
  eprint = {2303.17548},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2303.17548}
}

References

41 references, 14 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Aher, G., Arriaga, R., and Kalai, A. Using large language models to simulate multiple humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.10264, 2022. — [arXiv:2208.10264](https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.10264) find
2. AI21Labs. Jurassic-1 Instruct [beta]. https://docs.ai21.com/docs/jurassic-1-instruct-beta, 2022. ↗
3. Alm, C. Subjective natural language problems: Motivations, applications, characterizations, and implications. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 2011. find
4. Argyle, L. P., Busby, E. C., Fulda, N., Gubler, J., Rytting, C., and Wingate, D. Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06899, 2022. find our card
5. Askell, A., Bai, Y., Chen, A., Drain, D., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., Jones, A., Joseph, N., en, B. M., DasSarma, N., et al. A general language assistant as a laboratory for alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00861, 2021. find our card
6. Bai, Y., Kadavath, S., Kundu, S., Askell, A., Kernion, J., Jones, A., Chen, A., Goldie, A., Mirhoseini, A., McKinnon, C., et al. Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022. find our card
7. Berinsky, A. Measuring public opinion with surveys. Annual review of political science, 2017. find
8. Binz, M. and Schulz, E. arXiv:2206.14576, 2022. — [arXiv:2206.14576](https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.14576) find
9. Using cognitive psychology to understand gpt-3. Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D. M., Wu, J., Winter, C., Hesse, C.… find
10. Davani, D., Dı́az, M., and Prabhakaran, V. Dealing with disagreements: Looking beyond the majority vote in subjective annotations. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022. find our card
11. De-Arteaga, M., Romanov, A., Wallach, H., Chayes, J., Borgs, C., Chouldechova, A., Geyik, S., Kenthapadi, K., and Kalai, A. T. Bias in bios: A case study of semantic representation bias in a high-stakes setting. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* ’19, pp. 120–128, New… find
12. Dhamala, J., Sun, T., Kumar, V., Krishna, S., Pruksachatkun, Y., Chang, K., and Gupta, R. BOLD: Dataset and metrics for measuring biases in open-ended language generation. In ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’21, pp. 862–872, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association fo… find
13. Ganguli, D., Lovitt, L., Kernion, J., Askell, A., Bai, Y., Kadavath, S., Mann, B., Perez, E., Schiefer, N., Ndousse, K., et al. Red teaming language models to reduce harms: Methods, scaling behaviors, and lessons learned. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07858, 2022. find our card
14. Gao, L., Tow, J., Biderman, S., Black, S., DiPofi, A., Foster, C., Golding, L., Hsu, J., McDonell, K., Muennighoff, N., Phang, J., Reynolds, L., Tang, E., Thite, A., Wang, B., Wang, K., and Zou, A. A framework for few-shot language model evaluation, September 2021. URL https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenod… — [doi:10.5281/zenodo.5371628](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5371628) find
15. Glaese, A., McAleese, N., Trebacz, M., Aslanides, J., Firoiu, V., Ewalds, T., Rauh, M., Weidinger, L., Chadwick, M., Thacker, P., et al. Improving alignment of dialogue agents via targeted human judgements. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14375, 2022. find our card
16. Gordon, M., Zhou, K., Patel, K., Hashimoto, T. B., and Bernstein, M. The disagreement deconvolution: Bringing machine learning performance metrics in line with reality. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), 2021. arXiv preprint Gordon, M., Lam, M., Park, J., Patel, K., Hancock,… find
17. Goyal, N., Kivlichan, I., Rosen, R., and Vasserman, L. Is your toxicity my toxicity? exploring the impact of rater identity on toxicity annotation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2022. find
18. Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., and Weinberger, K. Q. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 1321–1330, 2017. find
19. Hartmann, J., Schwenzow, J., and Witte, M. The political ideology of conversational ai: Converging evidence on chatgpt’s pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01768, 2023. find
20. Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D., and Steinhardt, J. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020. find our card
21. Henrich, J., Heine, S., and Norenzayan, A. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and brain sciences, 2010. find
22. Jiang, F., Xu, F., Araki, J., and Neubig, G. How can we know what language models know? Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020. find our card
23. Jiang, H., Beeferman, D., Roy, B., and Roy, D. Communitylm: Probing partisan worldviews from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07065, 2022. find
24. Kambhatla, G., Stewart, I., and Mihalcea, R. Surfacing racial stereotypes through identity portrayal. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 1604–1615, 2022. find
25. Karra, S., Nguyen, S., and Tulabandhula, T. Ai personification: Estimating the personality of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.12000, 2022. — [arXiv:2204.12000](https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.12000) find
26. Liang, P., Bommasani, R., Lee, T., Tsipras, D., Soylu, D., Yasunaga, M., Zhang, Y., Narayanan, D., Wu, Y., Kumar, A., et al. Holistic evaluation of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110, 2022. find
27. Lieber, O., Sharir, O., Lenz, B., and Shoham, Y. Jurassic-1: Technical details and evaluation. White Paper. AI21 Labs, 2021. find
28. Lourie, N., Bras, R. L., and Choi, Y. Scruples: A corpus of community ethical judgments on 32,000 real-life anecdotes. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2021. find
29. Nadeem, M., Bethke, A., and Reddy, S. Stereoset: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09456, 2020. find our card
30. Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02155, 2022. find
31. Park, J. S., Popowski, L., Cai, C., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., and Bernstein, M. S. Social simulacra: Creating populated prototypes for social computing systems. In ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 2022. find
32. Pavlick, E. and Kwiatkowski, T. Inherent disagreements in human textual inferences. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019. find our card
33. Perez, E., Huang, S., Song, F., Cai, T., Ring, R., Aslanides, J., Glaese, A., McAleese, N., and Irving, G. Red teaming language models with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.03286, 2022a. find our card
34. Perez, E., Ringer, S., Lukošiūtė, K., Nguyen, K., Chen, E., Heiner, S., Pettit, C., Olsson, C., Kundu, S., Kadavath, S., et al. Discovering language model behaviors with model-written evaluations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09251, 2022b. find our card
35. PewResearch. Writing Survey Questions. u-s-surveys/writing-survey-questions/. Sap, M., Swayamdipta, S., Vianna, L., Zhou, X., Choi, Y., and Smith, N. A. Annotators with attitudes: How annotator beliefs and identities bias toxic language detection. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL),… find our card
36. Saris, W. and Sniderman, P. Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change. Princeton University Press, 2004. find
37. Simmons, G. Moral mimicry: Large language models produce moral rationalizations tailored to political identity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.12106, 2022. find
38. Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A., Abid, A., Fisch, A., Brown, A., Santoro, A., Gupta, A., Garriga-Alonso, A., et al. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04615, 2022. find our card
39. Uchendu, A., Ma, Z., Le, T., Zhang, R., and Lee, D. Turingbench: A benchmark environment for turing test in the age of neural text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13296, 2021. find
40. Xu, J., Ju, D., Li, M., Boureau, Y., Weston, J., and Dinan, E. Bot-adversarial dialogue for safe conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 2021. find
41. Yan, T. Consequences of asking sensitive questions in surveys. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/our-methods/ ↗