PreprintCited by 128Ethics and Social Impacts of AISpeech and dialogue systemsLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies

In conversation with Artificial Intelligence: aligning language models with human values

Open access
Kasirzadeh, Atoosa, Gabriel, Iason·2022·arXiv

Abstract

Large-scale language technologies are increasingly used in various forms of communication with humans across different contexts. One particular use case for these technologies is conversational agents, which output natural language text in response to prompts and queries. This mode of engagement raises a number of social and ethical questions. For example, what does it mean to align conversational agents with human norms or values? Which norms or values should they be aligned with? And how can this be accomplished? In this paper, we propose a number of steps that help answer these questions. We start by developing a philosophical analysis of the building blocks of linguistic communication between conversational agents and human interlocutors. We then use this analysis to identify and formulate ideal norms of conversation that can govern successful linguistic communication between humans and conversational agents. Furthermore, we explore how these norms can be used to align conversational agents with human values across a range of different discursive domains. We conclude by discussing the practical implications of our proposal for the design of conversational agents that are aligned with these norms and values.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2209.00731

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs learn to replicate biases and stereotypes present in their training data because their objective is to predict the next element in a text based on a large corpus of internet text data.

    “This can be explained since the objective of many LLMs, including GPT-3, is to predict the next element in a text, based on a large corpus of text data from the internet, (15) thus LLMs learn to replicate biases and stereotypes present in that data (16).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kasirzadeh, A., & Gabriel, I.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Google DeepMind (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Kasirzadeh, Atoosa
  • Gabriel, Iason
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Volume
36
Issue
2
ISSN
2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4366390744
Cited by
128
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 1
FWCI
31.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophy & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
DeepMind
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Keywords
chatbots, large language models, value alignment, linguistic communication, human-agent interaction, AI ethics, agent design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review