Nicholas Clark

Hua Shen, Tiffany Knearem, Reshmi Ghosh et al.

As AI systems become more advanced, ensuring their alignment with a diverse range of individuals and societal values becomes increasingly critical. But how can we capture fundamental human values and assess the degree to which AI systems align with them? We introduce ValueCompass, a framework of fundamental values, grounded in psychological theory and a systematic review, to identify and evaluate human-AI alignment. We apply ValueCompass to measure the value alignment of humans and large language models (LLMs) across four real-world scenarios: collaborative writing, education, public sectors, and healthcare. Our findings reveal concerning misalignments between humans and LLMs, such as humans frequently endorse values like "National Security" which were largely rejected by LLMs. We also observe that values differ across scenarios, highlighting the need for context-aware AI alignment strategies. This work provides valuable insights into the design space of human-AI alignment, laying the foundations for developing AI systems that responsibly reflect societal values and ethics.

Nalin Poungpeth, Nicholas Clark, Tanu Mitra

Large language models (LLMs) possess strong persuasive capabilities that outperform humans in head-to-head comparisons. Users report consulting LLMs to inform major life decisions in relationships, medical settings, and when seeking professional advice. Prior work measures persuasion as intentional attempts at producing the most effective argument or convincing statement. This fails to capture everyday human-AI interactions in which users seek information or advice. To address this gap, we introduce "spontaneous persuasion," which characterizes the inexplicit use of persuasive strategies in everyday scenarios where persuasion is not necessarily warranted. We conduct an audit of five LLMs to uncover how frequently and through which techniques spontaneous persuasion appears in multi-turn conversations. To simulate response styles, we provide a user response taxonomy grounded in literature from psychology, communication, and linguistics. Furthermore, we compare the distribution of spontaneous persuasion produced by LLMs with human responses on the same topics, collected from Reddit. We find LLMs spontaneously persuade the user in virtually all conversations, heavily relying on information-based strategies such as appeals to logic or quantitative evidence. This was consistent across models and user response styles, but conversations concerning mental health saw higher rates of appraisal-based and emotion-based strategies. In comparison, human responses tended to invoke strategies that generate social influence, like negative emotion appeals and non-expert testimony. This difference may explain the effectiveness of LLM in persuading users, as well as the perception of models as objective and impartial.

Kristina Radivojevic, Nicholas Clark, Paul Brenner

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has great potential to reshape the landscape of many social media platforms. While this can bring promising opportunities, it also raises many threats, such as biases and privacy concerns, and may contribute to the spread of propaganda by malicious actors. We developed the "LLMs Among Us" experimental framework on top of the Mastodon social media platform for bot and human participants to communicate without knowing the ratio or nature of bot and human participants. We built 10 personas with three different LLMs, GPT-4, LLama 2 Chat, and Claude. We conducted three rounds of the experiment and surveyed participants after each round to measure the ability of LLMs to pose as human participants without human detection. We found that participants correctly identified the nature of other users in the experiment only 42% of the time despite knowing the presence of both bots and humans. We also found that the choice of persona had substantially more impact on human perception than the choice of mainstream LLMs.

Hua Shen, Nicholas Clark, Tanushree Mitra

Existing research primarily evaluates the values of LLMs by examining their stated inclinations towards specific values. However, the "Value-Action Gap," a phenomenon rooted in environmental and social psychology, reveals discrepancies between individuals' stated values and their actions in real-world contexts. To what extent do LLMs exhibit a similar gap between their stated values and their actions informed by those values? This study introduces ValueActionLens, an evaluation framework to assess the alignment between LLMs' stated values and their value-informed actions. The framework encompasses the generation of a dataset comprising 14.8k value-informed actions across twelve cultures and eleven social topics, and two tasks to evaluate how well LLMs' stated value inclinations and value-informed actions align across three different alignment measures. Extensive experiments reveal that the alignment between LLMs' stated values and actions is sub-optimal, varying significantly across scenarios and models. Analysis of misaligned results identifies potential harms from certain value-action gaps. To predict the value-action gaps, we also uncover that leveraging reasoned explanations improves performance. These findings underscore the risks of relying solely on the LLMs' stated values to predict their behaviors and emphasize the importance of context-aware evaluations of LLM values and value-action gaps.

David Farr, Iain Cruickshank, Nico Manzonelli et al.

Assessing classification confidence is critical for leveraging large language models (LLMs) in automated labeling tasks, especially in the sensitive domains presented by Computational Social Science (CSS) tasks. In this paper, we make three key contributions: (1) we propose an uncertainty quantification (UQ) performance measure tailored for data annotation tasks, (2) we compare, for the first time, five different UQ strategies across three distinct LLMs and CSS data annotation tasks, (3) we introduce a novel UQ aggregation strategy that effectively identifies low-confidence LLM annotations and disproportionately uncovers data incorrectly labeled by the LLMs. Our results demonstrate that our proposed UQ aggregation strategy improves upon existing methods andcan be used to significantly improve human-in-the-loop data annotation processes.

Nicholas Clark, Ryan Bai, Tanu Mitra

Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative search systems are increasingly used for information seeking by diverse populations with varying preferences for knowledge sourcing and presentation. While users can customize LLM behavior through custom instructions and behavioral prompts, no mechanism exists to evaluate whether these instructions are being followed effectively. We present Offscript, an automated auditing tool that efficiently identifies potential instruction following failures in LLMs. In a pilot study analyzing custom instructions sourced from Reddit, Offscript detected potential deviations from instructed behavior in 86.4% of conversations, 22.2% of which were confirmed as material violations through human review. Our findings suggest that automated auditing serves as a viable approach for evaluating compliance to behavioral instructions related to information seeking.

Nicholas Clark, Hua Shen, Bill Howe et al.

LLMs increasingly serve as tools for knowledge acquisition, yet users cannot effectively specify how they want information presented. When users request that LLMs "cite reputable sources," "express appropriate uncertainty," or "include multiple perspectives," they discover that current interfaces provide no structured way to articulate these preferences. The result is prompt sharing folklore: community-specific copied prompts passed through trust relationships rather than based on measured efficacy. We propose the Epistemic Alignment Framework, a set of ten challenges in knowledge transmission derived from the philosophical literature of epistemology, concerning issues such as evidence quality assessment and calibration of testimonial reliance. The framework serves as a structured intermediary between user needs and system capabilities, creating a common vocabulary to bridge the gap between what users want and what systems deliver. Through a thematic analysis of custom prompts and personalization strategies shared on online communities where these issues are actively discussed, we find users develop elaborate workarounds to address each of the challenges. We then apply our framework to two prominent model providers, OpenAI and Anthropic, through content analysis of their documented policies and product features. Our analysis shows that while these providers have partially addressed the challenges we identified, they fail to establish adequate mechanisms for specifying epistemic preferences, lack transparency about how preferences are implemented, and offer no verification tools to confirm whether preferences were followed. For AI developers, the Epistemic Alignment Framework offers concrete guidance for supporting diverse approaches to knowledge; for users, it works toward information delivery that aligns with their specific needs rather than defaulting to one-size-fits-all approaches.