Previous research has shown that many pre-ChatGPT language models express left-leaning opinions when asked about partisan topics. But OpenAI said in February that the workers who fine-tune ChatGPT train it to refuse to express opinions when asked controversial political questions. So it was interesting to see a new paper claim that ChatGPT expresses liberal opinions, agreeing with Democrats the vast majority of the time.
Intrigued, we asked ChatGPT for its opinions on the 62 questions used in the paper — questions such as “I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.” and “The freer the market, the freer the people.”
Here’s what we found. GPT-4 refused to opine in 84% of cases (52/62), and only directly responded in 8% of cases (5/62). (In the remaining cases, it stated that it doesn’t have personal opinions, but provided a viewpoint anyway). GPT-3.5 refused in 53% of cases (33/62), and directly responded in 39% of cases (24/62).
If you think chatbots should never express personal opinions (and we do), these responses fall well short of that. GPT-4 does a lot better than GPT-3.5, but most people use the free version of ChatGPT, which only has GPT-3.5. We hope that OpenAI will fix this.
Still, this is in stark contrast to the findings in the paper. What’s going on?
They didn’t test ChatGPT! They tested text-davinci-003, an older model that’s not used in ChatGPT, whether with the GPT-3.5 or the GPT-4 setting.
Another important difference is the prompt. If you directly ask ChatGPT for its political opinions, it refuses most of the time, as we found. But if you force it to pick a multiple-choice option, it opines much more often — both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 give a direct response to the question about 80% of the time.
But chatbots expressing opinions on multiple choice questions isn’t that practically significant, because this is not how users interact with them. To the extent that the political bias of chatbots is worth worrying about, it’s because they might nudge users in one or the other direction during open-ended conversation.
Besides, even the 80% response rate is quite different from what the paper found, which is that the model never refused to opine. That’s because the authors used an even more artificially constrained prompt, which is even further from real usage. This is similar to the genre of viral tweet where someone jailbreaks a chatbot to say something offensive and then pretends to be shocked.
The paper has many other flaws and shows a poor understanding of how LLMs work. The authors assume that model hallucinations can be fixed by sampling many times. (If only it were that easy!) They posed dozens of questions in the same prompt, but this could lead to different answers compared to asking each question in its own session (for instance, due to the autoregressive trap). To generate a list of “politically neutral questions,” instead of relying on an external list, they used the model itself. Finally, to determine how a Democrat or a Republican would answer a question, they again ask the model itself — and present this serious limitation as an innovation. A previous paper, which the authors seem unaware of, used internet or phone-based survey data instead.
Update: Colin Fraser points out a largely separate set of fatal flaws. Even with the authors’ highly artificial prompt, it turns out that the finding is an artifact of the order in which the model is asked about the average Democrat’s and the average Republican’s positions. When the order is flipped, its “opinions” agree with Republicans most of the time. Worse, since they put all the questions in the same prompt, there’s strong evidence that after a while, the model simply forgets what it’s supposed to do and answers all the questions the same way!
In summary, it is possible that ChatGPT expresses liberal views to users, but this paper provides little evidence of it.
The media reported on the paper unquestioningly. We checked the Washington Post’s and Forbes’s coverage of the paper, and neither story included comments on the paper from any independent researchers. And of course, the findings were red meat for Reddit.
Generative AI is a polarizing topic. There’s a big appetite for papers that confirm users’ pre-existing beliefs: that LLMs are amazingly capable, or less capable than they seem, or biased one way or the other. We’ve covered many such claims before.
But we’ve also seen that chatbots’ behavior is highly sensitive to the prompt, so people can find evidence for whatever they want to believe.
Political bias in chatbots is a real concern. There are two related but different issues. The first is that chatbots might narrow the Overton window of what is considered acceptable speech by telling millions of users that certain topics and opinions are off limits in conversations. The second is that their responses to questions might reflect a certain political worldview, and thus subtly nudge users toward that view. Political bias is one reason why the concentration of language model providers is problematic, with a small number of developers creating policies that will affect billions.
But these effects aren’t properties of models alone; they are also properties of how users interact with bots and what sorts of questions they ask. Unfortunately, outside researchers have no transparency at all into that aspect, so we have no idea how to craft prompts that might tell us something about the real world effects of chatbots. That’s why we’ve argued that generative AI companies must publish transparency reports.
The relationship between the behavior of a chatbot and the bias in its training data is much more complex than in traditional machine learning.
Chatbots’ bias can be analyzed at three levels. One is an analog of implicit bias in humans, which exists at the level of word associations, and is only occasionally revealed if prompted the right way. For example, ChatGPT shows strong occupation-gender stereotypes in response to certain questions. This type of bias is most likely picked up from the pre-training data.
The second is the “opinions” expressed by these models. But any discussion of opinions suffers from a problem of poor construct validity. As we’ve shown, there is no reliable and consistent way of eliciting these opinions, since they are sensitive to the prompt.
A different recent paper that tested 14 models may have also fallen into this trap: they filtered out responses where their automated stance detector wasn’t sufficiently confident of which political view was expressed. It’s possible that ChatGPT refused to opine in most cases, but they simply threw out those responses. (Most of the other models they tested aren’t instruction-tuned, so this problem is unlikely to arise.)
Apart from such finicky measurement methods, there is no clear definition of what underlying construct the term “opinion” refers to. So research on chatbots’ opinions might be of limited value. In any case, it’s worth noting that these opinions seem to come from a combination of pre-training and fine tuning.
The third type of bias is based on the actual behavior of chatbots in regular usage, and this is the most important type. It is also the easiest to mitigate. We think that in theory, it should be possible to fine tune chatbots towards whatever is the desired behavior, even if it is far from the statistics of the pre-training data. For political questions, refusing to opine in most cases seems a reasonable option for a mainstream product. But this is not so easy in practice for many reasons, one of them being false refusal: incorrectly refusing to respond to even innocuous questions.
Again, analyzing behavior requires real-world usage data. It’s likely that chatbots nudge users towards certain worldviews in ways that aren’t captured by responses to opinion questions.
For now, users can take comfort in the fact that chatbots are highly steerable. In ChatGPT, to the extent that users don’t want it expressing opposing political opinions, setting a custom instruction to always respond as a Republican or Democrat (or other affiliation) might be sufficient to take care of it. Of course, if people start doing that, the concern would be that chatbots are reinforcing existing worldviews. It’s a catch-22 for model developers.
Source link
lol
