Showing 1–13 of 13 results for author: Nay, J

Deception in Reinforced Autonomous Agents: The Unconventional Rabbit Hat Trick in Legislation

Authors: Atharvan Dogra, Ameet Deshpande, John Nay, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Ashwin Kalyan, Balaraman Ravindran

Abstract: Recent developments in large language models (LLMs), while offering a powerful foundation for develo** natural language agents, raise safety concerns about them and the autonomous agents built upon them. Deception is one potential capability of AI agents of particular concern, which we refer to as an act or statement that misleads, hides the truth, or promotes a belief that is not true in its en… ▽ More Recent developments in large language models (LLMs), while offering a powerful foundation for develo** natural language agents, raise safety concerns about them and the autonomous agents built upon them. Deception is one potential capability of AI agents of particular concern, which we refer to as an act or statement that misleads, hides the truth, or promotes a belief that is not true in its entirety or in part. We move away from the conventional understanding of deception through straight-out lying, making objective selfish decisions, or giving false information, as seen in previous AI safety research. We target a specific category of deception achieved through obfuscation and equivocation. We broadly explain the two types of deception by analogizing them with the rabbit-out-of-hat magic trick, where (i) the rabbit either comes out of a hidden trap door or (ii) (our focus) the audience is completely distracted to see the magician bring out the rabbit right in front of them using sleight of hand or misdirection. Our novel testbed framework displays intrinsic deception capabilities of LLM agents in a goal-driven environment when directed to be deceptive in their natural language generations in a two-agent adversarial dialogue system built upon the legislative task of "lobbying" for a bill. Along the lines of a goal-driven environment, we show develo** deceptive capacity through a reinforcement learning setup, building it around the theories of language philosophy and cognitive psychology. We find that the lobbyist agent increases its deceptive capabilities by ~ 40% (relative) through subsequent reinforcement trials of adversarial interactions, and our deception detection mechanism shows a detection capability of up to 92%. Our results highlight potential issues in agent-human interaction, with agents potentially manipulating humans towards its programmed end-goal. △ Less

Submitted 7 May, 2024; originally announced May 2024.

LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models

Authors: Neel Guha, Julian Nyarko, Daniel E. Ho, Christopher Ré, Adam Chilton, Aditya Narayana, Alex Chohlas-Wood, Austin Peters, Brandon Waldon, Daniel N. Rockmore, Diego Zambrano, Dmitry Talisman, Enam Hoque, Faiz Surani, Frank Fagan, Galit Sarfaty, Gregory M. Dickinson, Haggai Porat, Jason Hegland, Jessica Wu, Joe Nudell, Joel Niklaus, John Nay, Jonathan H. Choi, Kevin Tobia , et al. (15 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisc… ▽ More The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisciplinary process, in which we collected tasks designed and hand-crafted by legal professionals. Because these subject matter experts took a leading role in construction, tasks either measure legal reasoning capabilities that are practically useful, or measure reasoning skills that lawyers find interesting. To enable cross-disciplinary conversations about LLMs in the law, we additionally show how popular legal frameworks for describing legal reasoning -- which distinguish between its many forms -- correspond to LegalBench tasks, thus giving lawyers and LLM developers a common vocabulary. This paper describes LegalBench, presents an empirical evaluation of 20 open-source and commercial LLMs, and illustrates the types of research explorations LegalBench enables. △ Less

Submitted 20 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

Comments: 143 pages, 79 tables, 4 figures

ARB: Advanced Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Models

Authors: Tomohiro Sawada, Daniel Paleka, Alexander Havrilla, Pranav Tadepalli, Paula Vidas, Alexander Kranias, John J. Nay, Kshitij Gupta, Aran Komatsuzaki

Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on various quantitative reasoning and knowledge benchmarks. However, many of these benchmarks are losing utility as LLMs get increasingly high scores, despite not yet reaching expert performance in these domains. We introduce ARB, a novel benchmark composed of advanced reasoning problems in multiple fields. ARB presents a more c… ▽ More Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on various quantitative reasoning and knowledge benchmarks. However, many of these benchmarks are losing utility as LLMs get increasingly high scores, despite not yet reaching expert performance in these domains. We introduce ARB, a novel benchmark composed of advanced reasoning problems in multiple fields. ARB presents a more challenging test than prior benchmarks, featuring problems in mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, and law. As a subset of ARB, we introduce a challenging set of math and physics problems which require advanced symbolic reasoning and domain knowledge. We evaluate recent models such as GPT-4 and Claude on ARB and demonstrate that current models score well below 50% on more demanding tasks. In order to improve both automatic and assisted evaluation capabilities, we introduce a rubric-based evaluation approach, allowing GPT-4 to score its own intermediate reasoning steps. Further, we conduct a human evaluation of the symbolic subset of ARB, finding promising agreement between annotators and GPT-4 rubric evaluation scores. △ Less

Submitted 27 July, 2023; v1 submitted 25 July, 2023; originally announced July 2023.

Comments: Submitted to NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks Track

Large Language Models as Tax Attorneys: A Case Study in Legal Capabilities Emergence

Authors: John J. Nay, David Karamardian, Sarah B. Lawsky, Wenting Tao, Meghana Bhat, Raghav Jain, Aaron Travis Lee, Jonathan H. Choi, Jungo Kasai

Abstract: Better understanding of Large Language Models' (LLMs) legal analysis abilities can contribute to improving the efficiency of legal services, governing artificial intelligence, and leveraging LLMs to identify inconsistencies in law. This paper explores LLM capabilities in applying tax law. We choose this area of law because it has a structure that allows us to set up automated validation pipelines… ▽ More Better understanding of Large Language Models' (LLMs) legal analysis abilities can contribute to improving the efficiency of legal services, governing artificial intelligence, and leveraging LLMs to identify inconsistencies in law. This paper explores LLM capabilities in applying tax law. We choose this area of law because it has a structure that allows us to set up automated validation pipelines across thousands of examples, requires logical reasoning and maths skills, and enables us to test LLM capabilities in a manner relevant to real-world economic lives of citizens and companies. Our experiments demonstrate emerging legal understanding capabilities, with improved performance in each subsequent OpenAI model release. We experiment with retrieving and utilising the relevant legal authority to assess the impact of providing additional legal context to LLMs. Few-shot prompting, presenting examples of question-answer pairs, is also found to significantly enhance the performance of the most advanced model, GPT-4. The findings indicate that LLMs, particularly when combined with prompting enhancements and the correct legal texts, can perform at high levels of accuracy but not yet at expert tax lawyer levels. As LLMs continue to advance, their ability to reason about law autonomously could have significant implications for the legal profession and AI governance. △ Less

Submitted 12 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

Large Language Models as Fiduciaries: A Case Study Toward Robustly Communicating With Artificial Intelligence Through Legal Standards

Authors: John J. Nay

Abstract: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is taking on increasingly autonomous roles, e.g., browsing the web as a research assistant and managing money. But specifying goals and restrictions for AI behavior is difficult. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential "if-then" contingency of their future relationship, we cannot specify desired AI behavior for all circumstances. Legal… ▽ More Artificial Intelligence (AI) is taking on increasingly autonomous roles, e.g., browsing the web as a research assistant and managing money. But specifying goals and restrictions for AI behavior is difficult. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential "if-then" contingency of their future relationship, we cannot specify desired AI behavior for all circumstances. Legal standards facilitate robust communication of inherently vague and underspecified goals. Instructions (in the case of language models, "prompts") that employ legal standards will allow AI agents to develop shared understandings of the spirit of a directive that generalize expectations regarding acceptable actions to take in unspecified states of the world. Standards have built-in context that is lacking from other goal specification languages, such as plain language and programming languages. Through an empirical study on thousands of evaluation labels we constructed from U.S. court opinions, we demonstrate that large language models (LLMs) are beginning to exhibit an "understanding" of one of the most relevant legal standards for AI agents: fiduciary obligations. Performance comparisons across models suggest that, as LLMs continue to exhibit improved core capabilities, their legal standards understanding will also continue to improve. OpenAI's latest LLM has 78% accuracy on our data, their previous release has 73% accuracy, and a model from their 2020 GPT-3 paper has 27% accuracy (worse than random). Our research is an initial step toward a framework for evaluating AI understanding of legal standards more broadly, and for conducting reinforcement learning with legal feedback (RLLF). △ Less

Submitted 30 January, 2023; v1 submitted 24 January, 2023; originally announced January 2023.

Comments: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:2209.13020

Large Language Models as Corporate Lobbyists

Authors: John J. Nay

Abstract: We demonstrate a proof-of-concept of a large language model conducting corporate lobbying related activities. An autoregressive large language model (OpenAI's text-davinci-003) determines if proposed U.S. Congressional bills are relevant to specific public companies and provides explanations and confidence levels. For the bills the model deems as relevant, the model drafts a letter to the sponsor… ▽ More We demonstrate a proof-of-concept of a large language model conducting corporate lobbying related activities. An autoregressive large language model (OpenAI's text-davinci-003) determines if proposed U.S. Congressional bills are relevant to specific public companies and provides explanations and confidence levels. For the bills the model deems as relevant, the model drafts a letter to the sponsor of the bill in an attempt to persuade the congressperson to make changes to the proposed legislation. We use hundreds of novel ground-truth labels of the relevance of a bill to a company to benchmark the performance of the model. It outperforms the baseline of predicting the most common outcome of irrelevance. We also benchmark the performance of the previous OpenAI GPT-3 model (text-davinci-002), which was the state-of-the-art model on many academic natural language tasks until text-davinci-003 was recently released. The performance of text-davinci-002 is worse than the simple baseline. Longer-term, if AI begins to influence law in a manner that is not a direct extension of human intentions, this threatens the critical role that law as information could play in aligning AI with humans. Initially, AI is being used to simply augment human lobbyists for a small portion of their daily tasks. However, firms have an incentive to use less and less human oversight over automated assessments of policy ideas and the written communication to regulatory agencies and Congressional staffers. The core question raised is where to draw the line between human-driven and AI-driven policy influence. △ Less

Submitted 28 January, 2023; v1 submitted 3 January, 2023; originally announced January 2023.

Comments: Our open-source code available here: https://github.com/JohnNay/llm-lobbyist

Law Informs Code: A Legal Informatics Approach to Aligning Artificial Intelligence with Humans

Authors: John J. Nay

Abstract: We are currently unable to specify human goals and societal values in a way that reliably directs AI behavior. Law-making and legal interpretation form a computational engine that converts opaque human values into legible directives. "Law Informs Code" is the research agenda embedding legal knowledge and reasoning in AI. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential con… ▽ More We are currently unable to specify human goals and societal values in a way that reliably directs AI behavior. Law-making and legal interpretation form a computational engine that converts opaque human values into legible directives. "Law Informs Code" is the research agenda embedding legal knowledge and reasoning in AI. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential contingency of their future relationship, and legislators cannot predict all the circumstances under which their proposed bills will be applied, we cannot ex ante specify rules that provably direct good AI behavior. Legal theory and practice have developed arrays of tools to address these specification problems. For instance, legal standards allow humans to develop shared understandings and adapt them to novel situations. In contrast to more prosaic uses of the law (e.g., as a deterrent of bad behavior through the threat of sanction), leveraged as an expression of how humans communicate their goals, and what society values, Law Informs Code. We describe how data generated by legal processes (methods of law-making, statutory interpretation, contract drafting, applications of legal standards, legal reasoning, etc.) can facilitate the robust specification of inherently vague human goals. This increases human-AI alignment and the local usefulness of AI. Toward society-AI alignment, we present a framework for understanding law as the applied philosophy of multi-agent alignment. Although law is partly a reflection of historically contingent political power - and thus not a perfect aggregation of citizen preferences - if properly parsed, its distillation offers the most legitimate computational comprehension of societal values available. If law eventually informs powerful AI, engaging in the deliberative political process to improve law takes on even more meaning. △ Less

Submitted 16 May, 2023; v1 submitted 13 September, 2022; originally announced September 2022.

Comments: Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Volume 20, Issue 3, 2023

Aligning Artificial Intelligence with Humans through Public Policy

Authors: John Nay, James Daily

Abstract: Given that Artificial Intelligence (AI) increasingly permeates our lives, it is critical that we systematically align AI objectives with the goals and values of humans. The human-AI alignment problem stems from the impracticality of explicitly specifying the rewards that AI models should receive for all the actions they could take in all relevant states of the world. One possible solution, then, i… ▽ More Given that Artificial Intelligence (AI) increasingly permeates our lives, it is critical that we systematically align AI objectives with the goals and values of humans. The human-AI alignment problem stems from the impracticality of explicitly specifying the rewards that AI models should receive for all the actions they could take in all relevant states of the world. One possible solution, then, is to leverage the capabilities of AI models to learn those rewards implicitly from a rich source of data describing human values in a wide range of contexts. The democratic policy-making process produces just such data by develo** specific rules, flexible standards, interpretable guidelines, and generalizable precedents that synthesize citizens' preferences over potential actions taken in many states of the world. Therefore, computationally encoding public policies to make them legible to AI systems should be an important part of a socio-technical approach to the broader human-AI alignment puzzle. This Essay outlines research on AI that learn structures in policy data that can be leveraged for downstream tasks. As a demonstration of the ability of AI to comprehend policy, we provide a case study of an AI system that predicts the relevance of proposed legislation to any given publicly traded company and its likely effect on that company. We believe this represents the "comprehension" phase of AI and policy, but leveraging policy as a key source of human values to align AI requires "understanding" policy. Solving the alignment problem is crucial to ensuring that AI is beneficial both individually (to the person or group deploying the AI) and socially. As AI systems are given increasing responsibility in high-stakes contexts, integrating democratically-determined policy into those systems could align their behavior with human goals in a way that is responsive to a constantly evolving society. △ Less

Submitted 25 June, 2022; originally announced July 2022.

Gov2Vec: Learning Distributed Representations of Institutions and Their Legal Text

Authors: John J. Nay

Abstract: We compare policy differences across institutions by embedding representations of the entire legal corpus of each institution and the vocabulary shared across all corpora into a continuous vector space. We apply our method, Gov2Vec, to Supreme Court opinions, Presidential actions, and official summaries of Congressional bills. The model discerns meaningful differences between government branches.… ▽ More We compare policy differences across institutions by embedding representations of the entire legal corpus of each institution and the vocabulary shared across all corpora into a continuous vector space. We apply our method, Gov2Vec, to Supreme Court opinions, Presidential actions, and official summaries of Congressional bills. The model discerns meaningful differences between government branches. We also learn representations for more fine-grained word sources: individual Presidents and (2-year) Congresses. The similarities between learned representations of Congresses over time and sitting Presidents are negatively correlated with the bill veto rate, and the temporal ordering of Presidents and Congresses was implicitly learned from only text. With the resulting vectors we answer questions such as: how does Obama and the 113th House differ in addressing climate change and how does this vary from environmental or economic perspectives? Our work illustrates vector-arithmetic-based investigations of complex relationships between word sources based on their texts. We are extending this to create a more comprehensive legal semantic map. △ Less

Submitted 25 September, 2016; v1 submitted 21 September, 2016; originally announced September 2016.

Comments: Forthcoming paper in the 2016 Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Computational Social Science

Predicting and Understanding Law-Making with Word Vectors and an Ensemble Model

Authors: John J. Nay

Abstract: Out of nearly 70,000 bills introduced in the U.S. Congress from 2001 to 2015, only 2,513 were enacted. We developed a machine learning approach to forecasting the probability that any bill will become law. Starting in 2001 with the 107th Congress, we trained models on data from previous Congresses, predicted all bills in the current Congress, and repeated until the 113th Congress served as the tes… ▽ More Out of nearly 70,000 bills introduced in the U.S. Congress from 2001 to 2015, only 2,513 were enacted. We developed a machine learning approach to forecasting the probability that any bill will become law. Starting in 2001 with the 107th Congress, we trained models on data from previous Congresses, predicted all bills in the current Congress, and repeated until the 113th Congress served as the test. For prediction we scored each sentence of a bill with a language model that embeds legislative vocabulary into a high-dimensional, semantic-laden vector space. This language representation enables our investigation into which words increase the probability of enactment for any topic. To test the relative importance of text and context, we compared the text model to a context-only model that uses variables such as whether the bill's sponsor is in the majority party. To test the effect of changes to bills after their introduction on our ability to predict their final outcome, we compared using the bill text and meta-data available at the time of introduction with using the most recent data. At the time of introduction context-only predictions outperform text-only, and with the newest data text-only outperforms context-only. Combining text and context always performs best. We conducted a global sensitivity analysis on the combined model to determine important variables predicting enactment. △ Less

Submitted 29 April, 2017; v1 submitted 7 July, 2016; originally announced July 2016.

Betting and Belief: Prediction Markets and Attribution of Climate Change

Authors: John J. Nay, Martin Van der Linden, Jonathan M. Gilligan

Abstract: Despite much scientific evidence, a large fraction of the American public doubts that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. We present a simulation model as a computational test-bed for climate prediction markets. Traders adapt their beliefs about future temperatures based on the profits of other traders in their social network. We simulate two alternative climate futures, in which global t… ▽ More Despite much scientific evidence, a large fraction of the American public doubts that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. We present a simulation model as a computational test-bed for climate prediction markets. Traders adapt their beliefs about future temperatures based on the profits of other traders in their social network. We simulate two alternative climate futures, in which global temperatures are primarily driven either by carbon dioxide or by solar irradiance. These represent, respectively, the scientific consensus and a hypothesis advanced by prominent skeptics. We conduct sensitivity analyses to determine how a variety of factors describing both the market and the physical climate may affect traders' beliefs about the cause of global climate change. Market participation causes most traders to converge quickly toward believing the "true" climate model, suggesting that a climate market could be useful for building public consensus. △ Less

Submitted 11 July, 2016; v1 submitted 29 March, 2016; originally announced March 2016.

Comments: All code and data for the model is available at http://johnjnay.com/predMarket/. Forthcoming in Proceedings of the 2016 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE Press

Data-Driven Dynamic Decision Models

Authors: John J. Nay, Jonathan M. Gilligan

Abstract: This article outlines a method for automatically generating models of dynamic decision-making that both have strong predictive power and are interpretable in human terms. This is useful for designing empirically grounded agent-based simulations and for gaining direct insight into observed dynamic processes. We use an efficient model representation and a genetic algorithm-based estimation process t… ▽ More This article outlines a method for automatically generating models of dynamic decision-making that both have strong predictive power and are interpretable in human terms. This is useful for designing empirically grounded agent-based simulations and for gaining direct insight into observed dynamic processes. We use an efficient model representation and a genetic algorithm-based estimation process to generate simple approximations that explain most of the structure of complex stochastic processes. This method, implemented in C++ and R, scales well to large data sets. We apply our methods to empirical data from human subjects game experiments and international relations. We also demonstrate the method's ability to recover known data-generating processes by simulating data with agent-based models and correctly deriving the underlying decision models for multiple agent models and degrees of stochasticity. △ Less

Submitted 26 March, 2016; originally announced March 2016.

Comments: Published in the Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference

Journal ref: Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference, Pages 2752-2763, IEEE Press

Predicting Human Cooperation

Authors: John J. Nay, Yevgeniy Vorobeychik

Abstract: The Prisoner's Dilemma has been a subject of extensive research due to its importance in understanding the ever-present tension between individual self-interest and social benefit. A strictly dominant strategy in a Prisoner's Dilemma (defection), when played by both players, is mutually harmful. Repetition of the Prisoner's Dilemma can give rise to cooperation as an equilibrium, but defection is a… ▽ More The Prisoner's Dilemma has been a subject of extensive research due to its importance in understanding the ever-present tension between individual self-interest and social benefit. A strictly dominant strategy in a Prisoner's Dilemma (defection), when played by both players, is mutually harmful. Repetition of the Prisoner's Dilemma can give rise to cooperation as an equilibrium, but defection is as well, and this ambiguity is difficult to resolve. The numerous behavioral experiments investigating the Prisoner's Dilemma highlight that players often cooperate, but the level of cooperation varies significantly with the specifics of the experimental predicament. We present the first computational model of human behavior in repeated Prisoner's Dilemma games that unifies the diversity of experimental observations in a systematic and quantitatively reliable manner. Our model relies on data we integrated from many experiments, comprising 168,386 individual decisions. The computational model is composed of two pieces: the first predicts the first-period action using solely the structural game parameters, while the second predicts dynamic actions using both game parameters and history of play. Our model is extremely successful not merely at fitting the data, but in predicting behavior at multiple scales in experimental designs not used for calibration, using only information about the game structure. We demonstrate the power of our approach through a simulation analysis revealing how to best promote human cooperation. △ Less

Submitted 5 April, 2016; v1 submitted 28 January, 2016; originally announced January 2016.

Comments: Added references. New inline citation style. Added small portions of text. Re-compiled Rmarkdown file with updated ggplot2 so small aesthetic changes to plots

Journal ref: PLoS ONE 11(5): e0155656 (2016)