MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intentional Biases in LLM Responses

2023· article· en· W4388757737 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPersona Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViewpointsVariety (cybernetics)PersonaComputer scienceConstruct (python library)Set (abstract data type)Language modelField (mathematics)SupervisorHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceData scienceNatural language processingProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we intentionally introduce biases into large language model responses in an attempt to create specific personas for interactive media purposes. We explore the differences between open source models such as Falcon-7b and the GPT-4 model from Open AI, and we quantity some differences in responses afforded by the two systems. We find that the guardrails in the GPT-4 mixture of experts models with a supervisor, while useful in assuring AI alignment in general, are detrimental in trying to construct personas with a variety of uncommon viewpoints. This study aims to set the groundwork for future exploration in intentional biases of large language models such that these practices can be applied in the creative field, and new forms of media.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersona Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207