-
Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences
Authors:
Shreya Shankar,
J. D. Zamfirescu-Pereira,
Björn Hartmann,
Aditya G. Parameswaran,
Ian Arawjo
Abstract:
Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LL…
▽ More
Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions (be it prompts or code) with human requirements. Our interface, EvalGen, provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. While generating candidate implementations (Python functions, LLM grader prompts), EvalGen asks humans to grade a subset of LLM outputs; this feedback is used to select implementations that better align with user grades. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. In particular, we identify a phenomenon we dub \emph{criteria drift}: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria. What is more, some criteria appears \emph{dependent} on the specific LLM outputs observed (rather than independent criteria that can be defined \emph{a priori}), raising serious questions for approaches that assume the independence of evaluation from observation of model outputs. We present our interface and implementation details, a comparison of our algorithm with a baseline approach, and implications for the design of future LLM evaluation assistants.
△ Less
Submitted 18 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Antagonistic AI
Authors:
Alice Cai,
Ian Arawjo,
Elena L. Glassman
Abstract:
The vast majority of discourse around AI development assumes that subservient, "moral" models aligned with "human values" are universally beneficial -- in short, that good AI is sycophantic AI. We explore the shadow of the sycophantic paradigm, a design space we term antagonistic AI: AI systems that are disagreeable, rude, interrupting, confrontational, challenging, etc. -- embedding opposite beha…
▽ More
The vast majority of discourse around AI development assumes that subservient, "moral" models aligned with "human values" are universally beneficial -- in short, that good AI is sycophantic AI. We explore the shadow of the sycophantic paradigm, a design space we term antagonistic AI: AI systems that are disagreeable, rude, interrupting, confrontational, challenging, etc. -- embedding opposite behaviors or values. Far from being "bad" or "immoral," we consider whether antagonistic AI systems may sometimes have benefits to users, such as forcing users to confront their assumptions, build resilience, or develop healthier relational boundaries. Drawing from formative explorations and a speculative design workshop where participants designed fictional AI technologies that employ antagonism, we lay out a design space for antagonistic AI, articulating potential benefits, design techniques, and methods of embedding antagonistic elements into user experience. Finally, we discuss the many ethical challenges of this space and identify three dimensions for the responsible design of antagonistic AI -- consent, context, and framing.
△ Less
Submitted 11 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Imagining a Future of Designing with AI: Dynamic Grounding, Constructive Negotiation, and Sustainable Motivation
Authors:
Priyan Vaithilingam,
Ian Arawjo,
Elena L. Glassman
Abstract:
We ideate a future design workflow that involves AI technology. Drawing from activity and communication theory, we attempt to isolate the new value large AI models can provide design compared to past technologies. We arrive at three affordances -- dynamic grounding, constructive negotiation, and sustainable motivation -- that summarize latent qualities of natural language-enabled foundation models…
▽ More
We ideate a future design workflow that involves AI technology. Drawing from activity and communication theory, we attempt to isolate the new value large AI models can provide design compared to past technologies. We arrive at three affordances -- dynamic grounding, constructive negotiation, and sustainable motivation -- that summarize latent qualities of natural language-enabled foundation models that, if explicitly designed for, can support the process of design. Through design fiction, we then imagine a future interface as a diegetic prototype, the story of Squirrel Game, that demonstrates each of our three affordances in a realistic usage scenario. Our design process, terminology, and diagrams aim to contribute to future discussions about the relative affordances of AI technology with regard to collaborating with human designers.
△ Less
Submitted 11 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
An AI-Resilient Text Rendering Technique for Reading and Skimming Documents
Authors:
Ziwei Gu,
Ian Arawjo,
Kenneth Li,
Jonathan K. Kummerfeld,
Elena L. Glassman
Abstract:
Readers find text difficult to consume for many reasons. Summarization can address some of these difficulties, but introduce others, such as omitting, misrepresenting, or hallucinating information, which can be hard for a reader to notice. One approach to addressing this problem is to instead modify how the original text is rendered to make important information more salient. We introduce Grammar-…
▽ More
Readers find text difficult to consume for many reasons. Summarization can address some of these difficulties, but introduce others, such as omitting, misrepresenting, or hallucinating information, which can be hard for a reader to notice. One approach to addressing this problem is to instead modify how the original text is rendered to make important information more salient. We introduce Grammar-Preserving Text Saliency Modulation (GP-TSM), a text rendering method with a novel means of identifying what to de-emphasize. Specifically, GP-TSM uses a recursive sentence compression method to identify successive levels of detail beyond the core meaning of a passage, which are de-emphasized by rendering words in successively lighter but still legible gray text. In a lab study (n=18), participants preferred GP-TSM over pre-existing word-level text rendering methods and were able to answer GRE reading comprehension questions more efficiently.
△ Less
Submitted 19 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
ChainForge: A Visual Toolkit for Prompt Engineering and LLM Hypothesis Testing
Authors:
Ian Arawjo,
Chelse Swoopes,
Priyan Vaithilingam,
Martin Wattenberg,
Elena Glassman
Abstract:
Evaluating outputs of large language models (LLMs) is challenging, requiring making -- and making sense of -- many responses. Yet tools that go beyond basic prompting tend to require knowledge of programming APIs, focus on narrow domains, or are closed-source. We present ChainForge, an open-source visual toolkit for prompt engineering and on-demand hypothesis testing of text generation LLMs. Chain…
▽ More
Evaluating outputs of large language models (LLMs) is challenging, requiring making -- and making sense of -- many responses. Yet tools that go beyond basic prompting tend to require knowledge of programming APIs, focus on narrow domains, or are closed-source. We present ChainForge, an open-source visual toolkit for prompt engineering and on-demand hypothesis testing of text generation LLMs. ChainForge provides a graphical interface for comparison of responses across models and prompt variations. Our system was designed to support three tasks: model selection, prompt template design, and hypothesis testing (e.g., auditing). We released ChainForge early in its development and iterated on its design with academics and online users. Through in-lab and interview studies, we find that a range of people could use ChainForge to investigate hypotheses that matter to them, including in real-world settings. We identify three modes of prompt engineering and LLM hypothesis testing: opportunistic exploration, limited evaluation, and iterative refinement.
△ Less
Submitted 3 May, 2024; v1 submitted 16 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
