REVIEW 2 cited by
Does Moral Code Have a Moral Code? Probing Delphi's Moral Philosophy
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In an effort to guarantee that machine learning model outputs conform with human moral values, recent work has begun exploring the possibility of explicitly training models to learn the difference between right and wrong. This is typically done in a bottom-up fashion, by exposing the model to different scenarios, annotated with human moral judgements. One question, however, is whether the trained models actually learn any consistent, higher-level ethical principles from these datasets -- and if so, what? Here, we probe the Allen AI Delphi model with a set of standardized morality questionnaires, and find that, despite some inconsistencies, Delphi tends to mirror the moral principles associated with the demographic groups involved in the annotation process. We question whether this is desirable and discuss how we might move forward with this knowledge.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Training with (Swap) Regret Loss in a Single-Layer Self-Attention Model: A Case Study on the Probability Simplex
Training single-layer attention with squared regret loss has stationary points that implement smoothed fictitious play (external regret) and, via a new swap-regret loss, the Blum–Mansour no-swap-regret algorithm.
-
Normative Evaluation of Large Language Models with Everyday Moral Dilemmas
Seven LLMs give different moral verdicts on AITA dilemmas, differ from Redditors, and only in an ensemble approximate human consensus.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.