A Comprehensive Analysis of Large Language Model Outputs: Similarity, Diversity, and Bias
This provides insights into LLM behavior and diversity to guide future development and ethical evaluation, but it is incremental as it builds on existing analysis of model outputs.
The study analyzed the similarity, diversity, and bias in outputs from 12 large language models using 5,000 prompts and approximately 3 million texts, finding that outputs from the same model are more similar to each other than to human-written texts, with models like GPT-4 producing more varied responses and some showing greater gender balance and reduced bias.
Large Language Models (LLMs) represent a major step toward artificial general intelligence, significantly advancing our ability to interact with technology. While LLMs perform well on Natural Language Processing tasks -- such as translation, generation, code writing, and summarization -- questions remain about their output similarity, variability, and ethical implications. For instance, how similar are texts generated by the same model? How does this compare across different models? And which models best uphold ethical standards? To investigate, we used 5{,}000 prompts spanning diverse tasks like generation, explanation, and rewriting. This resulted in approximately 3 million texts from 12 LLMs, including proprietary and open-source systems from OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Mistral. Key findings include: (1) outputs from the same LLM are more similar to each other than to human-written texts; (2) models like WizardLM-2-8x22b generate highly similar outputs, while GPT-4 produces more varied responses; (3) LLM writing styles differ significantly, with Llama 3 and Mistral showing higher similarity, and GPT-4 standing out for distinctiveness; (4) differences in vocabulary and tone underscore the linguistic uniqueness of LLM-generated content; (5) some LLMs demonstrate greater gender balance and reduced bias. These results offer new insights into the behavior and diversity of LLM outputs, helping guide future development and ethical evaluation.