Opportunities and Risks of LLMs for Scalable Deliberation with Polis

AI-generated keywords: Large Language Models (LLMs) Polis Opportunities Risks Deliberation

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • Large Language Models (LLMs) can facilitate, moderate, and summarize outcomes in Polis engagements
  • LLMs augment human intelligence and improve efficiency of Polis conversations
  • Summarization capabilities enabled by LLMs empower the public in collective meaning-making exercises
  • Risks associated with using LLMs need to be addressed
  • Principles and techniques proposed for characterizing and mitigating risks
  • Implications of employing LLMs in other deliberative or political systems explored
  • Open research directions outlined for further enhancing tools like Polis with LLMs
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Christopher T. Small, Ivan Vendrov, Esin Durmus, Hadjar Homaei, Elizabeth Barry, Julien Cornebise, Ted Suzman, Deep Ganguli, Colin Megill

31 pages (main body; 45 with Bibliography and Appendix), 6 figures
License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Abstract: Polis is a platform that leverages machine intelligence to scale up deliberative processes. In this paper, we explore the opportunities and risks associated with applying Large Language Models (LLMs) towards challenges with facilitating, moderating and summarizing the results of Polis engagements. In particular, we demonstrate with pilot experiments using Anthropic's Claude that LLMs can indeed augment human intelligence to help more efficiently run Polis conversations. In particular, we find that summarization capabilities enable categorically new methods with immense promise to empower the public in collective meaning-making exercises. And notably, LLM context limitations have a significant impact on insight and quality of these results. However, these opportunities come with risks. We discuss some of these risks, as well as principles and techniques for characterizing and mitigating them, and the implications for other deliberative or political systems that may employ LLMs. Finally, we conclude with several open future research directions for augmenting tools like Polis with LLMs.

Submitted to arXiv on 20 Jun. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2306.11932v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

In the paper titled "Opportunities and Risks of LLMs for Scalable Deliberation with Polis," authors Christopher T. Small, Ivan Vendrov, Esin Durmus, Hadjar Homaei, Elizabeth Barry, Julien Cornebise, Ted Suzman, Deep Ganguli, and Colin Megill discuss the potential benefits and risks associated with using Large Language Models (LLMs) in the context of Polis, a platform that utilizes machine intelligence to enhance deliberative processes. The authors begin by highlighting the opportunities presented by LLMs in facilitating, moderating, and summarizing the outcomes of Polis engagements. Through pilot experiments using Anthropic's Claude LLM, they demonstrate how these models can augment human intelligence and improve the efficiency of Polis conversations. The authors specifically emphasize how summarization capabilities enabled by LLMs offer new methods that empower the public in collective meaning-making exercises. However, alongside these opportunities come risks that need to be addressed. The paper discusses some of these risks and proposes principles and techniques for characterizing and mitigating them. Additionally, it explores the implications of employing LLMs in other deliberative or political systems. The authors conclude by outlining several open research directions for further enhancing tools like Polis with LLMs. These future research areas aim to address limitations related to LLM context and explore ways to maximize insights and quality in utilizing LLMs within deliberative processes. Overall, this paper provides a comprehensive examination of both the opportunities and risks associated with leveraging LLMs for scalable deliberation with platforms like Polis. It offers valuable insights into how machine intelligence can be effectively utilized while also addressing potential challenges that may arise from their implementation.
Created on 20 Jul. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.