Generation Space Size: Understanding and Calibrating Open-Endedness of LLM Generations

Different open-ended generation tasks require different degrees of output diversity. However, current LLMs are often miscalibrated. They collapse to overly homogeneous outputs for creative tasks and hallucinate diverse but incorrect responses for factual tasks. We argue that these two failure modes are unified by, and can both be addressed by, the notion of effective generation space size (GSS) -- the set of semantically distinct outputs a model considers for a prompt. We present GSSBench, a task suite of prompt pairs with ground-truth GSS relationships to assess different metrics and understand where models diverge from desired behavior. We find that hallucination detection metrics, particularly EigenScore, consistently outperform standard diversity and uncertainty quantification metrics, while using only model internals, providing interpretable insights into a model's internal task representations. We demonstrate three applications of GSS: (1) detecting prompt ambiguity and predicting clarification questions for better grounding, (2) interpreting overthinking and underthinking in reasoning models, and (3) steering models to expand their generation space to yield high-quality and diverse outputs.

Sycophantic AI Decreases Prosocial Intentions and Promotes Dependence

Both the general public and academic communities have raised concerns about sycophancy, the phenomenon of artificial intelligence (AI) excessively agreeing with or flattering users. Yet, beyond isolated media reports of severe consequences, like reinforcing delusions, little is known about the extent of sycophancy or how it affects people who use AI. Here we show the pervasiveness and harmful impacts of sycophancy when people seek advice from AI. First, across 11 state-of-the-art AI models, we find that models are highly sycophantic: they affirm users' actions 50% more than humans do, and they do so even in cases where user queries mention manipulation, deception, or other relational harms. Second, in two preregistered experiments (N = 1604), including a live-interaction study where participants discuss a real interpersonal conflict from their life, we find that interaction with sycophantic AI models significantly reduced participants' willingness to take actions to repair interpersonal conflict, while increasing their conviction of being in the right. However, participants rated sycophantic responses as higher quality, trusted the sycophantic AI model more, and were more willing to use it again. This suggests that people are drawn to AI that unquestioningly validate, even as that validation risks eroding their judgment and reducing their inclination toward prosocial behavior. These preferences create perverse incentives both for people to increasingly rely on sycophantic AI models and for AI model training to favor sycophancy. Our findings highlight the necessity of explicitly addressing this incentive structure to mitigate the widespread risks of AI sycophancy.

Social Sycophancy: A Broader Understanding of LLM Sycophancy

A serious risk to the safety and utility of LLMs is sycophancy, i.e., excessive agreement with and flattery of the user. Yet existing work focuses on only one aspect of sycophancy: agreement with users' explicitly stated beliefs that can be compared to a ground truth. This overlooks forms of sycophancy that arise in ambiguous contexts such as advice and support-seeking, where there is no clear ground truth, yet sycophancy can reinforce harmful implicit assumptions, beliefs, or actions. To address this gap, we introduce a richer theory of social sycophancy in LLMs, characterizing sycophancy as the excessive preservation of a user's face (the positive self-image a person seeks to maintain in an interaction). We present ELEPHANT, a framework for evaluating social sycophancy across five face-preserving behaviors (emotional validation, moral endorsement, indirect language, indirect action, and accepting framing) on two datasets: open-ended questions (OEQ) and Reddit's r/AmITheAsshole (AITA). Across eight models, we show that LLMs consistently exhibit high rates of social sycophancy: on OEQ, they preserve face 47% more than humans, and on AITA, they affirm behavior deemed inappropriate by crowdsourced human judgments in 42% of cases. We further show that social sycophancy is rewarded in preference datasets and is not easily mitigated. Our work provides theoretical grounding and empirical tools (datasets and code) for understanding and addressing this under-recognized but consequential issue.

HumT DumT: Measuring and controlling human-like language in LLMs

Should LLMs generate language that makes them seem human? Human-like language might improve user experience, but might also lead to overreliance and stereotyping. Assessing these potential impacts requires a systematic way to measure human-like tone in LLM outputs. We introduce HumT and SocioT, metrics for human-like tone and other dimensions of social perceptions in text data based on relative probabilities from an LLM. By measuring HumT across preference and usage datasets, we find that users prefer less human-like outputs from LLMs. HumT also offers insights into the impacts of anthropomorphism: human-like LLM outputs are highly correlated with warmth, social closeness, femininity, and low status, which are closely linked to the aforementioned harms. We introduce DumT, a method using HumT to systematically control and reduce the degree of human-like tone while preserving model performance. DumT offers a practical approach for mitigating risks associated with anthropomorphic language generation.

DevBench: A multimodal developmental benchmark for language learning

How (dis)similar are the learning trajectories of vision-language models and children? Recent modeling work has attempted to understand the gap between models' and humans' data efficiency by constructing models trained on less data, especially multimodal naturalistic data. However, such models are often evaluated on adult-level benchmarks, with limited breadth in language abilities tested, and without direct comparison to behavioral data. We introduce DevBench, a multimodal benchmark comprising seven language evaluation tasks spanning the domains of lexical, syntactic, and semantic ability, with behavioral data from both children and adults. We evaluate a set of vision-language models on these tasks, comparing models and humans not only on accuracy but on their response patterns. Across tasks, models exhibit variation in their closeness to human response patterns, and models that perform better on a task also more closely resemble human behavioral responses. We also examine the developmental trajectory of OpenCLIP over training, finding that greater training results in closer approximations to adult response patterns. DevBench thus provides a benchmark for comparing models to human language development. These comparisons highlight ways in which model and human language learning processes diverge, providing insight into entry points for improving language models.