Beyond Prompts: Learning from Human Communication for Enhanced AI Intent Alignment

AI intent alignment, ensuring that AI produces outcomes as intended by users, is a critical challenge in human-AI interaction. The emergence of generative AI, including LLMs, has intensified the significance of this problem, as interactions increasingly involve users specifying desired results for AI systems. In order to support better AI intent alignment, we aim to explore human strategies for intent specification in human-human communication. By studying and comparing human-human and human-LLM communication, we identify key strategies that can be applied to the design of AI systems that are more effective at understanding and aligning with user intent. This study aims to advance toward a human-centered AI system by bringing together human communication strategies for the design of AI systems.

One vs. Many: Comprehending Accurate Information from Multiple Erroneous and Inconsistent AI Generations

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are nondeterministic, the same input can generate different outputs, some of which may be incorrect or hallucinated. If run again, the LLM may correct itself and produce the correct answer. Unfortunately, most LLM-powered systems resort to single results which, correct or not, users accept. Having the LLM produce multiple outputs may help identify disagreements or alternatives. However, it is not obvious how the user will interpret conflicts or inconsistencies. To this end, we investigate how users perceive the AI model and comprehend the generated information when they receive multiple, potentially inconsistent, outputs. Through a preliminary study, we identified five types of output inconsistencies. Based on these categories, we conducted a study (N=252) in which participants were given one or more LLM-generated passages to an information-seeking question. We found that inconsistency within multiple LLM-generated outputs lowered the participants' perceived AI capacity, while also increasing their comprehension of the given information. Specifically, we observed that this positive effect of inconsistencies was most significant for participants who read two passages, compared to those who read three. Based on these findings, we present design implications that, instead of regarding LLM output inconsistencies as a drawback, we can reveal the potential inconsistencies to transparently indicate the limitations of these models and promote critical LLM usage.