Still No Lie Detector for Language Models: Probing Empirical and Conceptual Roadblocks

AI-generated keywords: LLMs Beliefs Measurement Transformer Architecture Empirical

AI-generated Key Points

  • Large language models (LLMs) and their beliefs
  • Evaluation of existing approaches for measuring LLM beliefs
  • Conceptual limitations of current measurement methods
  • Questioning whether LLMs should be expected to have beliefs
  • Refuting arguments against LLMs having beliefs
  • Emphasizing the empirical nature of determining LLM beliefs
  • Overview of transformer architecture, specifically autoregressive, decoder-only models like GPT and LLaMA series
  • Aim of the article: shedding light on LLM belief status and suggesting future research paths
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: B. A. Levinstein, Daniel A. Herrmann

License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Abstract: We consider the questions of whether or not large language models (LLMs) have beliefs, and, if they do, how we might measure them. First, we evaluate two existing approaches, one due to Azaria and Mitchell (2023) and the other to Burns et al. (2022). We provide empirical results that show that these methods fail to generalize in very basic ways. We then argue that, even if LLMs have beliefs, these methods are unlikely to be successful for conceptual reasons. Thus, there is still no lie-detector for LLMs. After describing our empirical results we take a step back and consider whether or not we should expect LLMs to have something like beliefs in the first place. We consider some recent arguments aiming to show that LLMs cannot have beliefs. We show that these arguments are misguided. We provide a more productive framing of questions surrounding the status of beliefs in LLMs, and highlight the empirical nature of the problem. We conclude by suggesting some concrete paths for future work.

Submitted to arXiv on 30 Jun. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2307.00175v1

This article explores the question of whether large language models (LLMs) have beliefs and how we can measure them. The authors evaluate two existing approaches for measuring LLM beliefs but find that these methods fail to generalize effectively. They argue that even if LLMs have beliefs, these measurement methods are unlikely to be successful due to conceptual reasons. The authors then consider whether LLMs should be expected to have beliefs in the first place and address arguments suggesting that they cannot. They refute these arguments by pointing out a philosophical mistake and providing a more productive framing of the belief status in LLMs. Moreover, they emphasize that determining whether LLMs have beliefs is an empirical matter. The article also provides an overview of transformer architecture, specifically focusing on autoregressive, decoder-only models like OpenAI's GPT series and Meta's LLaMA series. Overall, this article aims to shed light on the status of beliefs in LLMs and suggests potential paths for future research in this area.
Created on 08 Aug. 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.

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.