A Looming Replication Crisis in Evaluating Behavior in Language Models? Evidence and Solutions

In an era where large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into a wide range of everyday applications, research into these models' behavior has surged. However, due to the novelty of the field, clear methodological guidelines are lacking. This raises concerns about the replicability and generalizability of insights gained from research on LLM behavior. In this study, we discuss the potential risk of a replication crisis and support our concerns with a series of replication experiments focused on prompt engineering techniques purported to influence reasoning abilities in LLMs. We tested GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3 Opus, Llama 3-8B, and Llama 3-70B, on the chain-of-thought, EmotionPrompting, ExpertPrompting, Sandbagging, as well as Re-Reading prompt engineering techniques, using manually double-checked subsets of reasoning benchmarks including CommonsenseQA, CRT, NumGLUE, ScienceQA, and StrategyQA. Our findings reveal a general lack of statistically significant differences across nearly all techniques tested, highlighting, among others, several methodological weaknesses in previous research. We propose a forward-looking approach that includes developing robust methodologies for evaluating LLMs, establishing sound benchmarks, and designing rigorous experimental frameworks to ensure accurate and reliable assessments of model outputs.

Mapping the Ethics of Generative AI: A Comprehensive Scoping Review

The advent of generative artificial intelligence and the widespread adoption of it in society engendered intensive debates about its ethical implications and risks. These risks often differ from those associated with traditional discriminative machine learning. To synthesize the recent discourse and map its normative concepts, we conducted a scoping review on the ethics of generative artificial intelligence, including especially large language models and text-to-image models. Our analysis provides a taxonomy of 378 normative issues in 19 topic areas and ranks them according to their prevalence in the literature. The study offers a comprehensive overview for scholars, practitioners, or policymakers, condensing the ethical debates surrounding fairness, safety, harmful content, hallucinations, privacy, interaction risks, security, alignment, societal impacts, and others. We discuss the results, evaluate imbalances in the literature, and explore unsubstantiated risk scenarios.

Fairness Hacking: The Malicious Practice of Shrouding Unfairness in Algorithms

Fairness in machine learning (ML) is an ever-growing field of research due to the manifold potential for harm from algorithmic discrimination. To prevent such harm, a large body of literature develops new approaches to quantify fairness. Here, we investigate how one can divert the quantification of fairness by describing a practice we call "fairness hacking" for the purpose of shrouding unfairness in algorithms. This impacts end-users who rely on learning algorithms, as well as the broader community interested in fair AI practices. We introduce two different categories of fairness hacking in reference to the established concept of p-hacking. The first category, intra-metric fairness hacking, describes the misuse of a particular metric by adding or removing sensitive attributes from the analysis. In this context, countermeasures that have been developed to prevent or reduce p-hacking can be applied to similarly prevent or reduce fairness hacking. The second category of fairness hacking is inter-metric fairness hacking. Inter-metric fairness hacking is the search for a specific fair metric with given attributes. We argue that countermeasures to prevent or reduce inter-metric fairness hacking are still in their infancy. Finally, we demonstrate both types of fairness hacking using real datasets. Our paper intends to serve as a guidance for discussions within the fair ML community to prevent or reduce the misuse of fairness metrics, and thus reduce overall harm from ML applications.

Deception Abilities Emerged in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are currently at the forefront of intertwining artificial intelligence (AI) systems with human communication and everyday life. Thus, aligning them with human values is of great importance. However, given the steady increase in reasoning abilities, future LLMs are under suspicion of becoming able to deceive human operators and utilizing this ability to bypass monitoring efforts. As a prerequisite to this, LLMs need to possess a conceptual understanding of deception strategies. This study reveals that such strategies emerged in state-of-the-art LLMs, such as GPT-4, but were non-existent in earlier LLMs. We conduct a series of experiments showing that state-of-the-art LLMs are able to understand and induce false beliefs in other agents, that their performance in complex deception scenarios can be amplified utilizing chain-of-thought reasoning, and that eliciting Machiavellianism in LLMs can alter their propensity to deceive. In sum, revealing hitherto unknown machine behavior in LLMs, our study contributes to the nascent field of machine psychology.

Human-Like Intuitive Behavior and Reasoning Biases Emerged in Language Models -- and Disappeared in GPT-4

Large language models (LLMs) are currently at the forefront of intertwining AI systems with human communication and everyday life. Therefore, it is of great importance to evaluate their emerging abilities. In this study, we show that LLMs, most notably GPT-3, exhibit behavior that strikingly resembles human-like intuition -- and the cognitive errors that come with it. However, LLMs with higher cognitive capabilities, in particular ChatGPT and GPT-4, learned to avoid succumbing to these errors and perform in a hyperrational manner. For our experiments, we probe LLMs with the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) as well as semantic illusions that were originally designed to investigate intuitive decision-making in humans. Moreover, we probe how sturdy the inclination for intuitive-like decision-making is. Our study demonstrates that investigating LLMs with methods from psychology has the potential to reveal otherwise unknown emergent traits.

Machine Psychology: Investigating Emergent Capabilities and Behavior in Large Language Models Using Psychological Methods

Large language models (LLMs) are currently at the forefront of intertwining AI systems with human communication and everyday life. Due to rapid technological advances and their extreme versatility, LLMs nowadays have millions of users and are at the cusp of being the main go-to technology for information retrieval, content generation, problem-solving, etc. Therefore, it is of great importance to thoroughly assess and scrutinize their capabilities. Due to increasingly complex and novel behavioral patterns in current LLMs, this can be done by treating them as participants in psychology experiments that were originally designed to test humans. For this purpose, the paper introduces a new field of research called "machine psychology". The paper outlines how different subfields of psychology can inform behavioral tests for LLMs. It defines methodological standards for machine psychology research, especially by focusing on policies for prompt designs. Additionally, it describes how behavioral patterns discovered in LLMs are to be interpreted. In sum, machine psychology aims to discover emergent abilities in LLMs that cannot be detected by most traditional natural language processing benchmarks.

Machine intuition: Uncovering human-like intuitive decision-making in GPT-3.5

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies revolutionize vast fields of society. Humans using these systems are likely to expect them to work in a potentially hyperrational manner. However, in this study, we show that some AI systems, namely large language models (LLMs), exhibit behavior that strikingly resembles human-like intuition - and the many cognitive errors that come with them. We use a state-of-the-art LLM, namely the latest iteration of OpenAI's Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT-3.5), and probe it with the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) as well as semantic illusions that were originally designed to investigate intuitive decision-making in humans. Our results show that GPT-3.5 systematically exhibits "machine intuition," meaning that it produces incorrect responses that are surprisingly equal to how humans respond to the CRT as well as to semantic illusions. We investigate several approaches to test how sturdy GPT-3.5's inclination for intuitive-like decision-making is. Our study demonstrates that investigating LLMs with methods from cognitive science has the potential to reveal emergent traits and adjust expectations regarding their machine behavior.

Why we need biased AI -- How including cognitive and ethical machine biases can enhance AI systems

This paper stresses the importance of biases in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) in two regards. First, in order to foster efficient algorithmic decision-making in complex, unstable, and uncertain real-world environments, we argue for the structurewise implementation of human cognitive biases in learning algorithms. Secondly, we argue that in order to achieve ethical machine behavior, filter mechanisms have to be applied for selecting biased training stimuli that represent social or behavioral traits that are ethically desirable. We use insights from cognitive science as well as ethics and apply them to the AI field, combining theoretical considerations with seven case studies depicting tangible bias implementation scenarios. Ultimately, this paper is the first tentative step to explicitly pursue the idea of a re-evaluation of the ethical significance of machine biases, as well as putting the idea forth to implement cognitive biases into machines.

Speciesist bias in AI -- How AI applications perpetuate discrimination and unfair outcomes against animals

Massive efforts are made to reduce biases in both data and algorithms in order to render AI applications fair. These efforts are propelled by various high-profile cases where biased algorithmic decision-making caused harm to women, people of color, minorities, etc. However, the AI fairness field still succumbs to a blind spot, namely its insensitivity to discrimination against animals. This paper is the first to describe the 'speciesist bias' and investigate it in several different AI systems. Speciesist biases are learned and solidified by AI applications when they are trained on datasets in which speciesist patterns prevail. These patterns can be found in image recognition systems, large language models, and recommender systems. Therefore, AI technologies currently play a significant role in perpetuating and normalizing violence against animals. This can only be changed when AI fairness frameworks widen their scope and include mitigation measures for speciesist biases. This paper addresses the AI community in this regard and stresses the influence AI systems can have on either increasing or reducing the violence that is inflicted on animals, and especially on farmed animals.

AI virtues -- The missing link in putting AI ethics into practice

Several seminal ethics initiatives have stipulated sets of principles and standards for good technology development in the AI sector. However, widespread criticism has pointed out a lack of practical realization of these principles. Following that, AI ethics underwent a practical turn, but without deviating from the principled approach and the many shortcomings associated with it. This paper proposes a different approach. It defines four basic AI virtues, namely justice, honesty, responsibility and care, all of which represent specific motivational settings that constitute the very precondition for ethical decision making in the AI field. Moreover, it defines two second-order AI virtues, prudence and fortitude, that bolster achieving the basic virtues by helping with overcoming bounded ethicality or the many hidden psychological forces that impair ethical decision making and that are hitherto completely disregarded in AI ethics. Lastly, the paper describes measures for successfully cultivating the mentioned virtues in organizations dealing with AI research and development.