Talk Less, Interact Better: Evaluating In-context Conversational Adaptation in Multimodal LLMs

Humans spontaneously use increasingly efficient language as interactions progress, by adapting and forming ad-hoc conventions. This phenomenon has been studied extensively using reference games, showing properties of human language that go beyond relaying intents. It remains unexplored whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs) similarly increase communication efficiency during interactions, and what mechanisms they may adopt for this purpose. We introduce ICCA, an automated framework to evaluate such conversational adaptation as an in-context behavior in MLLMs. We evaluate several state-of-the-art MLLMs, and observe that while they may understand the increasingly efficient language of their interlocutor, they do not spontaneously make their own language more efficient over time. This latter ability can only be elicited in some models (e.g., GPT-4) with heavy-handed prompting. This shows that this property of linguistic interaction does not arise from current training regimes, even though it is a common hallmark of human language. ICCA is available at https://github.com/lil-lab/ICCA.

How Did We Get Here? Summarizing Conversation Dynamics

Throughout a conversation, the way participants interact with each other is in constant flux: their tones may change, they may resort to different strategies to convey their points, or they might alter their interaction patterns. An understanding of these dynamics can complement that of the actual facts and opinions discussed, offering a more holistic view of the trajectory of the conversation: how it arrived at its current state and where it is likely heading. In this work, we introduce the task of summarizing the dynamics of conversations, by constructing a dataset of human-written summaries, and exploring several automated baselines. We evaluate whether such summaries can capture the trajectory of conversations via an established downstream task: forecasting whether an ongoing conversation will eventually derail into toxic behavior. We show that they help both humans and automated systems with this forecasting task. Humans make predictions three times faster, and with greater confidence, when reading the summaries than when reading the transcripts. Furthermore, automated forecasting systems are more accurate when constructing, and then predicting based on, summaries of conversation dynamics, compared to directly predicting on the transcripts.