Abstract:An Achilles heel of Large Language Models (LLMs) is their tendency to hallucinate non-factual statements. A response mixed of factual and non-factual statements poses a challenge for humans to verify and accurately base their decisions on. To combat this problem, we propose Highlighted Chain-of-Thought Prompting (HoT), a technique for prompting LLMs to generate responses with XML tags that ground facts to those provided in the query. That is, given an input question, LLMs would first re-format the question to add XML tags highlighting key facts, and then, generate a response with highlights over the facts referenced from the input. Interestingly, in few-shot settings, HoT outperforms vanilla chain of thought prompting (CoT) on a wide range of 17 tasks from arithmetic, reading comprehension to logical reasoning. When asking humans to verify LLM responses, highlights help time-limited participants to more accurately and efficiently recognize when LLMs are correct. Yet, surprisingly, when LLMs are wrong, HoTs tend to make users believe that an answer is correct.
Abstract:Large language models with vision capabilities (VLMs), e.g., GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 Pro are powering countless image-text applications and scoring high on many vision-understanding benchmarks. We propose BlindTest, a suite of 7 visual tasks absurdly easy to humans such as identifying (a) whether two circles overlap; (b) whether two lines intersect; (c) which letter is being circled in a word; and (d) counting the number of circles in a Olympic-like logo. Surprisingly, four state-of-the-art VLMs are, on average, only 56.20% accurate on our benchmark, with \newsonnet being the best (73.77% accuracy). On BlindTest, VLMs struggle with tasks that requires precise spatial information and counting (from 0 to 10), sometimes providing an impression of a person with myopia seeing fine details as blurry and making educated guesses. Code is available at: https://vlmsareblind.github.io/