Accepted with Minor Revisions: Value of AI-Assisted Scientific Writing

Large Language Models have seen expanding application across domains, yet their effectiveness as assistive tools for scientific writing -- an endeavor requiring precision, multimodal synthesis, and domain expertise -- remains insufficiently understood. We examine the potential of LLMs to support domain experts in scientific writing, with a focus on abstract composition. We design an incentivized randomized controlled trial with a hypothetical conference setup where participants with relevant expertise are split into an author and reviewer pool. Inspired by methods in behavioral science, our novel incentive structure encourages authors to edit the provided abstracts to an acceptable quality for a peer-reviewed submission. Our 2x2 between-subject design expands into two dimensions: the implicit source of the provided abstract and the disclosure of it. We find authors make most edits when editing human-written abstracts compared to AI-generated abstracts without source attribution, often guided by higher perceived readability in AI generation. Upon disclosure of source information, the volume of edits converges in both source treatments. Reviewer decisions remain unaffected by the source of the abstract, but bear a significant correlation with the number of edits made. Careful stylistic edits, especially in the case of AI-generated abstracts, in the presence of source information, improve the chance of acceptance. We find that AI-generated abstracts hold potential to reach comparable levels of acceptability to human-written ones with minimal revision, and that perceptions of AI authorship, rather than objective quality, drive much of the observed editing behavior. Our findings reverberate the significance of source disclosure in collaborative scientific writing.

AI Safety Should Prioritize the Future of Work

Current efforts in AI safety prioritize filtering harmful content, preventing manipulation of human behavior, and eliminating existential risks in cybersecurity or biosecurity. While pressing, this narrow focus overlooks critical human-centric considerations that shape the long-term trajectory of a society. In this position paper, we identify the risks of overlooking the impact of AI on the future of work and recommend comprehensive transition support towards the evolution of meaningful labor with human agency. Through the lens of economic theories, we highlight the intertemporal impacts of AI on human livelihood and the structural changes in labor markets that exacerbate income inequality. Additionally, the closed-source approach of major stakeholders in AI development resembles rent-seeking behavior through exploiting resources, breeding mediocrity in creative labor, and monopolizing innovation. To address this, we argue in favor of a robust international copyright anatomy supported by implementing collective licensing that ensures fair compensation mechanisms for using data to train AI models. We strongly recommend a pro-worker framework of global AI governance to enhance shared prosperity and economic justice while reducing technical debt.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Role of AI Quality Disclosure in Lie Detection

We investigate how low-quality AI advisors, lacking quality disclosures, can help spread text-based lies while seeming to help people detect lies. Participants in our experiment discern truth from lies by evaluating transcripts from a game show that mimicked deceptive social media exchanges on topics with objective truths. We find that when relying on low-quality advisors without disclosures, participants' truth-detection rates fall below their own abilities, which recovered once the AI's true effectiveness was revealed. Conversely, high-quality advisor enhances truth detection, regardless of disclosure. We discover that participants' expectations about AI capabilities contribute to their undue reliance on opaque, low-quality advisors.

Data-driven Discovery with Large Generative Models

With the accumulation of data at an unprecedented rate, its potential to fuel scientific discovery is growing exponentially. This position paper urges the Machine Learning (ML) community to exploit the capabilities of large generative models (LGMs) to develop automated systems for end-to-end data-driven discovery -- a paradigm encompassing the search and verification of hypotheses purely from a set of provided datasets, without the need for additional data collection or physical experiments. We first outline several desiderata for an ideal data-driven discovery system. Then, through DATAVOYAGER, a proof-of-concept utilizing GPT-4, we demonstrate how LGMs fulfill several of these desiderata -- a feat previously unattainable -- while also highlighting important limitations in the current system that open up opportunities for novel ML research. We contend that achieving accurate, reliable, and robust end-to-end discovery systems solely through the current capabilities of LGMs is challenging. We instead advocate for fail-proof tool integration, along with active user moderation through feedback mechanisms, to foster data-driven scientific discoveries with efficiency and reproducibility.

To Tell The Truth: Language of Deception and Language Models

Text-based misinformation permeates online discourses, yet evidence of people's ability to discern truth from such deceptive textual content is scarce. We analyze a novel TV game show data where conversations in a high-stake environment between individuals with conflicting objectives result in lies. We investigate the manifestation of potentially verifiable language cues of deception in the presence of objective truth, a distinguishing feature absent in previous text-based deception datasets. We show that there exists a class of detectors (algorithms) that have similar truth detection performance compared to human subjects, even when the former accesses only the language cues while the latter engages in conversations with complete access to all potential sources of cues (language and audio-visual). Our model, built on a large language model, employs a bottleneck framework to learn discernible cues to determine truth, an act of reasoning in which human subjects often perform poorly, even with incentives. Our model detects novel but accurate language cues in many cases where humans failed to detect deception, opening up the possibility of humans collaborating with algorithms and ameliorating their ability to detect the truth.