21.9HCOct 23, 2023
Interactive AI Alignment: Specification, Process, and Evaluation AlignmentMichael Terry, Chinmay Kulkarni, Martin Wattenberg et al. · deepmind
Modern AI enables a high-level, declarative form of interaction: Users describe the intended outcome they wish an AI to produce, but do not actually create the outcome themselves. In contrast, in traditional user interfaces, users invoke specific operations to create the desired outcome. This paper revisits the basic input-output interaction cycle in light of this declarative style of interaction, and connects concepts in AI alignment to define three objectives for interactive alignment of AI: specification alignment (aligning on what to do), process alignment (aligning on how to do it), and evaluation alignment (assisting users in verifying and understanding what was produced). Using existing systems as examples, we show how these user-centered views of AI alignment can be used descriptively, prescriptively, and as an evaluative aid.
23.7HCOct 24, 2023
ConstitutionMaker: Interactively Critiquing Large Language Models by Converting Feedback into PrinciplesSavvas Petridis, Ben Wedin, James Wexler et al.
Large language model (LLM) prompting is a promising new approach for users to create and customize their own chatbots. However, current methods for steering a chatbot's outputs, such as prompt engineering and fine-tuning, do not support users in converting their natural feedback on the model's outputs to changes in the prompt or model. In this work, we explore how to enable users to interactively refine model outputs through their feedback, by helping them convert their feedback into a set of principles (i.e. a constitution) that dictate the model's behavior. From a formative study, we (1) found that users needed support converting their feedback into principles for the chatbot and (2) classified the different principle types desired by users. Inspired by these findings, we developed ConstitutionMaker, an interactive tool for converting user feedback into principles, to steer LLM-based chatbots. With ConstitutionMaker, users can provide either positive or negative feedback in natural language, select auto-generated feedback, or rewrite the chatbot's response; each mode of feedback automatically generates a principle that is inserted into the chatbot's prompt. In a user study with 14 participants, we compare ConstitutionMaker to an ablated version, where users write their own principles. With ConstitutionMaker, participants felt that their principles could better guide the chatbot, that they could more easily convert their feedback into principles, and that they could write principles more efficiently, with less mental demand. ConstitutionMaker helped users identify ways to improve the chatbot, formulate their intuitive responses to the model into feedback, and convert this feedback into specific and clear principles. Together, these findings inform future tools that support the interactive critiquing of LLM outputs.
14.1HCApr 6
Compass vs Railway Tracks: Unpacking User Mental Models for Communicating Long-Horizon Work to Humans vs. AISavvas Petridis, Michael Xieyang Liu, Alexander J. Fiannaca et al.
As AI systems grow increasingly capable of operating for hours or days at a time, users' prompts are transforming into elaborate specifications for the AI to autonomously work on. While prompting for bounded, single-turn tasks has been extensively studied, less is known about how people communicate specifications for long-horizon tasks. We conducted a qualitative study in which 16 professionals drafted specifications for both a human colleague and an AI, revealing a core divergence: participants treated human delegation as a "compass", offering high-level intent to encourage flexible exploration. In contrast, communication with AI resembled painstakingly laying down "railway tracks": rigid, exhaustive instructions to minimize ambiguity and deviation. This reflected a perception that current AI struggles to infer intent, prioritize, and make judgments on its own. When envisioning an ideal AI collaborator, users desired a hybrid: a collaborator blending AI's efficiency and large context window with the critical thinking and agency of a human colleague. We discuss design implications for future AI systems, proposing that they align on outcomes through generated rough drafts, verify feasibility via end-to-end "test runs," and monitor execution through intelligent check-ins -- ultimately transforming AI from a passive instruction-follower into a reliable collaborator for ambiguous, long-horizon tasks.
11.9HCOct 24, 2023
PromptInfuser: How Tightly Coupling AI and UI Design Impacts Designers' WorkflowsSavvas Petridis, Michael Terry, Carrie J. Cai
Prototyping AI applications is notoriously difficult. While large language model (LLM) prompting has dramatically lowered the barriers to AI prototyping, designers are still prototyping AI functionality and UI separately. We investigate how coupling prompt and UI design affects designers' workflows. Grounding this research, we developed PromptInfuser, a Figma plugin that enables users to create semi-functional mockups, by connecting UI elements to the inputs and outputs of prompts. In a study with 14 designers, we compare PromptInfuser to designers' current AI-prototyping workflow. PromptInfuser was perceived to be significantly more useful for communicating product ideas, more capable of producing prototypes that realistically represent the envisioned artifact, more efficient for prototyping, and more helpful for anticipating UI issues and technical constraints. PromptInfuser encouraged iteration over prompt and UI together, which helped designers identify UI and prompt incompatibilities and reflect upon their total solution. Together, these findings inform future systems for prototyping AI applications.
Farsight: Fostering Responsible AI Awareness During AI Application PrototypingZijie J. Wang, Chinmay Kulkarni, Lauren Wilcox et al. · gatech
Prompt-based interfaces for Large Language Models (LLMs) have made prototyping and building AI-powered applications easier than ever before. However, identifying potential harms that may arise from AI applications remains a challenge, particularly during prompt-based prototyping. To address this, we present Farsight, a novel in situ interactive tool that helps people identify potential harms from the AI applications they are prototyping. Based on a user's prompt, Farsight highlights news articles about relevant AI incidents and allows users to explore and edit LLM-generated use cases, stakeholders, and harms. We report design insights from a co-design study with 10 AI prototypers and findings from a user study with 42 AI prototypers. After using Farsight, AI prototypers in our user study are better able to independently identify potential harms associated with a prompt and find our tool more useful and usable than existing resources. Their qualitative feedback also highlights that Farsight encourages them to focus on end-users and think beyond immediate harms. We discuss these findings and reflect on their implications for designing AI prototyping experiences that meaningfully engage with AI harms. Farsight is publicly accessible at: https://PAIR-code.github.io/farsight.
18.7AIApr 4, 2024
Designing for Human-Agent Alignment: Understanding what humans want from their agentsNitesh Goyal, Minsuk Chang, Michael Terry
Our ability to build autonomous agents that leverage Generative AI continues to increase by the day. As builders and users of such agents it is unclear what parameters we need to align on before the agents start performing tasks on our behalf. To discover these parameters, we ran a qualitative empirical research study about designing agents that can negotiate during a fictional yet relatable task of selling a camera online. We found that for an agent to perform the task successfully, humans/users and agents need to align over 6 dimensions: 1) Knowledge Schema Alignment 2) Autonomy and Agency Alignment 3) Operational Alignment and Training 4) Reputational Heuristics Alignment 5) Ethics Alignment and 6) Human Engagement Alignment. These empirical findings expand previous work related to process and specification alignment and the need for values and safety in Human-AI interactions. Subsequently we discuss three design directions for designers who are imagining a world filled with Human-Agent collaborations.
9.5HCJan 27, 2025
Gensors: Authoring Personalized Visual Sensors with Multimodal Foundation Models and ReasoningMichael Xieyang Liu, Savvas Petridis, Vivian Tsai et al.
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs), with their expansive world knowledge and reasoning capabilities, present a unique opportunity for end-users to create personalized AI sensors capable of reasoning about complex situations. A user could describe a desired sensing task in natural language (e.g., "alert if my toddler is getting into mischief"), with the MLLM analyzing the camera feed and responding within seconds. In a formative study, we found that users saw substantial value in defining their own sensors, yet struggled to articulate their unique personal requirements and debug the sensors through prompting alone. To address these challenges, we developed Gensors, a system that empowers users to define customized sensors supported by the reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. Gensors 1) assists users in eliciting requirements through both automatically-generated and manually created sensor criteria, 2) facilitates debugging by allowing users to isolate and test individual criteria in parallel, 3) suggests additional criteria based on user-provided images, and 4) proposes test cases to help users "stress test" sensors on potentially unforeseen scenarios. In a user study, participants reported significantly greater sense of control, understanding, and ease of communication when defining sensors using Gensors. Beyond addressing model limitations, Gensors supported users in debugging, eliciting requirements, and expressing unique personal requirements to the sensor through criteria-based reasoning; it also helped uncover users' "blind spots" by exposing overlooked criteria and revealing unanticipated failure modes. Finally, we discuss how unique characteristics of MLLMs--such as hallucinations and inconsistent responses--can impact the sensor-creation process. These findings contribute to the design of future intelligent sensing systems that are intuitive and customizable by everyday users.
61.6PLAug 16, 2021
Program Synthesis with Large Language ModelsJacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye et al.
This paper explores the limits of the current generation of large language models for program synthesis in general purpose programming languages. We evaluate a collection of such models (with between 244M and 137B parameters) on two new benchmarks, MBPP and MathQA-Python, in both the few-shot and fine-tuning regimes. Our benchmarks are designed to measure the ability of these models to synthesize short Python programs from natural language descriptions. The Mostly Basic Programming Problems (MBPP) dataset contains 974 programming tasks, designed to be solvable by entry-level programmers. The MathQA-Python dataset, a Python version of the MathQA benchmark, contains 23914 problems that evaluate the ability of the models to synthesize code from more complex text. On both datasets, we find that synthesis performance scales log-linearly with model size. Our largest models, even without finetuning on a code dataset, can synthesize solutions to 59.6 percent of the problems from MBPP using few-shot learning with a well-designed prompt. Fine-tuning on a held-out portion of the dataset improves performance by about 10 percentage points across most model sizes. On the MathQA-Python dataset, the largest fine-tuned model achieves 83.8 percent accuracy. Going further, we study the model's ability to engage in dialog about code, incorporating human feedback to improve its solutions. We find that natural language feedback from a human halves the error rate compared to the model's initial prediction. Additionally, we conduct an error analysis to shed light on where these models fall short and what types of programs are most difficult to generate. Finally, we explore the semantic grounding of these models by fine-tuning them to predict the results of program execution. We find that even our best models are generally unable to predict the output of a program given a specific input.
Guided Integrated Gradients: An Adaptive Path Method for Removing NoiseAndrei Kapishnikov, Subhashini Venugopalan, Besim Avci et al.
Integrated Gradients (IG) is a commonly used feature attribution method for deep neural networks. While IG has many desirable properties, the method often produces spurious/noisy pixel attributions in regions that are not related to the predicted class when applied to visual models. While this has been previously noted, most existing solutions are aimed at addressing the symptoms by explicitly reducing the noise in the resulting attributions. In this work, we show that one of the causes of the problem is the accumulation of noise along the IG path. To minimize the effect of this source of noise, we propose adapting the attribution path itself -- conditioning the path not just on the image but also on the model being explained. We introduce Adaptive Path Methods (APMs) as a generalization of path methods, and Guided IG as a specific instance of an APM. Empirically, Guided IG creates saliency maps better aligned with the model's prediction and the input image that is being explained. We show through qualitative and quantitative experiments that Guided IG outperforms other, related methods in nearly every experiment.
XRAI: Better Attributions Through RegionsAndrei Kapishnikov, Tolga Bolukbasi, Fernanda Viégas et al.
Saliency methods can aid understanding of deep neural networks. Recent years have witnessed many improvements to saliency methods, as well as new ways for evaluating them. In this paper, we 1) present a novel region-based attribution method, XRAI, that builds upon integrated gradients (Sundararajan et al. 2017), 2) introduce evaluation methods for empirically assessing the quality of image-based saliency maps (Performance Information Curves (PICs)), and 3) contribute an axiom-based sanity check for attribution methods. Through empirical experiments and example results, we show that XRAI produces better results than other saliency methods for common models and the ImageNet dataset.
19.2LGJan 16, 2019
TensorFlow.js: Machine Learning for the Web and BeyondDaniel Smilkov, Nikhil Thorat, Yannick Assogba et al.
TensorFlow.js is a library for building and executing machine learning algorithms in JavaScript. TensorFlow.js models run in a web browser and in the Node.js environment. The library is part of the TensorFlow ecosystem, providing a set of APIs that are compatible with those in Python, allowing models to be ported between the Python and JavaScript ecosystems. TensorFlow.js has empowered a new set of developers from the extensive JavaScript community to build and deploy machine learning models and enabled new classes of on-device computation. This paper describes the design, API, and implementation of TensorFlow.js, and highlights some of the impactful use cases.
11.9CLNov 28, 2016
AutoMOS: Learning a non-intrusive assessor of naturalness-of-speechBrian Patton, Yannis Agiomyrgiannakis, Michael Terry et al.
Developers of text-to-speech synthesizers (TTS) often make use of human raters to assess the quality of synthesized speech. We demonstrate that we can model human raters' mean opinion scores (MOS) of synthesized speech using a deep recurrent neural network whose inputs consist solely of a raw waveform. Our best models provide utterance-level estimates of MOS only moderately inferior to sampled human ratings, as shown by Pearson and Spearman correlations. When multiple utterances are scored and averaged, a scenario common in synthesizer quality assessment, AutoMOS achieves correlations approaching those of human raters. The AutoMOS model has a number of applications, such as the ability to explore the parameter space of a speech synthesizer without requiring a human-in-the-loop.