On the reliability of Large Language Models to misinformed and demographically informed prompts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigate and observe the behavior and performance of Large Language Model (LLM)‐backed chatbots in addressing misinformed prompts and questions with demographic information within the domains of Climate Change and Mental Health. Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, we assess the chatbots' ability to discern the veracity of statements, their adherence to facts, and the presence of bias or misinformation in their responses. Our quantitative analysis using True/False questions reveals that these chatbots can be relied on to give the right answers to these close‐ended questions. However, the qualitative insights, gathered from domain experts, shows that there are still concerns regarding privacy, ethical implications, and the necessity for chatbots to direct users to professional services. We conclude that while these chatbots hold significant promise, their deployment in sensitive areas necessitates careful consideration, ethical oversight, and rigorous refinement to ensure they serve as a beneficial augmentation to human expertise rather than an autonomous solution. Dataset and assessment information can be found at https://github.com/tolusophy/Edge‐of‐Tomorrow .
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it