arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2210.01478cs.CLcs.AIcs.CYcs.LG

When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral Judgment

MPI(马克斯·普朗克研究所);ETH Zürich(苏黎世联邦理工学院);MIT(麻省理工学院);Harvard(哈佛大学);IIT Kharagpur(印度理工学院卡拉格普尔分校);Carnegie Mellon University(卡内基梅隆大学);University of Michigan(密歇根大学);MPI for Intelligent Systems(马克斯·普朗克智能系统研究所)

Zhijing Jin, Sydney Levine, Fernando Gonzalez, Ojasv Kamal, Maarten Sap, Mrinmaya Sachan, Rada Mihalcea, Josh Tenenbaum, Bernhard Schölkopf

英文摘要:

AI systems are becoming increasingly intertwined with human life. In order to effectively collaborate with humans and ensure safety, AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions. Human moral judgments are often guided by rules, but not always. A central challenge for AI safety is capturing the flexibility of the human moral mind -- the ability to determine when a rule should be broken, especially in novel or unusual situations. In this paper, we present a novel challenge set consisting of rule-breaking question answering (RBQA) of cases that involve potentially permissible rule-breaking -- inspired by recent moral psychology studies. Using a state-of-the-art large language model (LLM) as a basis, we propose a novel moral chain of thought (MORALCOT) prompting strategy that combines the strengths of LLMs with theories of moral reasoning developed in cognitive science to predict human moral judgments. MORALCOT outperforms seven existing LLMs by 6.2% F1, suggesting that modeling human reasoning might be necessary to capture the flexibility of the human moral mind. We also conduct a detailed error analysis to suggest directions for future work to improve AI safety using RBQA. Our data is open-sourced at https://huggingface.co/datasets/feradauto/MoralExceptQA and code at https://github.com/feradauto/MoralCoT

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑