Search

Emerging efforts in AI alignment seek to broaden participation in shaping model behavior by eliciting and integrating collective input into a policy for model finetuning. While pluralistic, these processes are often linear and do not allow participating stakeholders to confirm whether potential outcomes of their contributions are indeed consistent with their intentions. Design prototyping has long advocated for rapid iteration using tight feedback loops of ideation, experimentation, and evaluation to mitigate these issues. We thus propose policy prototyping for LLMs, a new process that draws inspiration from prototyping practices to enable stakeholders to collaboratively and interactively draft LLM policies. Through learnings from a real-world LLM policymaking initiative at an industrial AI lab, we motivate our approach and characterize policy prototyping with four guiding principles. Because policy prototyping emphasizes a contrasting set of priorities compared to previous approaches, we envision our approach to be a valuable addition to the methodological repertoire for pluralistic alignment.

General purpose AI, such as ChatGPT, seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. However, the governance and development of AI still remain in the hands of a few, and the pace of development is accelerating without a comprehensive assessment of risks. As a first step towards democratic risk assessment and design of general purpose AI, we introduce PARTICIP-AI, a carefully designed framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts. Our framework allows us to study more nuanced and detailed public opinions on AI through collecting use cases, surfacing diverse harms through risk assessment under alternate scenarios (i.e., developing and not developing a use case), and illuminating tensions over AI development through making a concluding choice on its development. To showcase the promise of our framework towards informing democratic AI development, we run a medium-scale study with inputs from 295 demographically diverse participants. Our analyses show that participants' responses emphasize applications for personal life and society, contrasting with most current AI development's business focus. We also surface diverse set of envisioned harms such as distrust in AI and institutions, complementary to those defined by experts. Furthermore, we found that perceived impact of not developing use cases significantly predicted participants' judgements of whether AI use cases should be developed, and highlighted lay users' concerns of techno-solutionism. We conclude with a discussion on how frameworks like PARTICIP-AI can further guide democratic AI development and governance., Comment: AIES 2024, 34 pages, 4 figures, 23 tables

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of providing users with advice in a wide range of professional domains, including legal advice. However, relying on LLMs for legal queries raises concerns due to the significant expertise required and the potential real-world consequences of the advice. To explore \textit{when} and \textit{why} LLMs should or should not provide advice to users, we conducted workshops with 20 legal experts using methods inspired by case-based reasoning. The provided realistic queries ("cases") allowed experts to examine granular, situation-specific concerns and overarching technical and legal constraints, producing a concrete set of contextual considerations for LLM developers. By synthesizing the factors that impacted LLM response appropriateness, we present a 4-dimension framework: (1) User attributes and behaviors, (2) Nature of queries, (3) AI capabilities, and (4) Social impacts. We share experts' recommendations for LLM response strategies, which center around helping users identify `right questions to ask' and relevant information rather than providing definitive legal judgments. Our findings reveal novel legal considerations, such as unauthorized practice of law, confidentiality, and liability for inaccurate advice, that have been overlooked in the literature. The case-based deliberation method enabled us to elicit fine-grained, practice-informed insights that surpass those from de-contextualized surveys or speculative principles. These findings underscore the applicability of our method for translating domain-specific professional knowledge and practices into policies that can guide LLM behavior in a more responsible direction., Comment: 14 pages

Case studies commonly form the pedagogical backbone in law, ethics, and many other domains that face complex and ambiguous societal questions informed by human values. Similar complexities and ambiguities arise when we consider how AI should be aligned in practice: when faced with vast quantities of diverse (and sometimes conflicting) values from different individuals and communities, with whose values is AI to align, and how should AI do so? We propose a complementary approach to constitutional AI alignment, grounded in ideas from case-based reasoning (CBR), that focuses on the construction of policies through judgments on a set of cases. We present a process to assemble such a case repository by: 1) gathering a set of ``seed'' cases -- questions one may ask an AI system -- in a particular domain from discussions in online communities, 2) eliciting domain-specific key dimensions for cases through workshops with domain experts, 3) using LLMs to generate variations of cases not seen in the wild, and 4) engaging with the public to judge and improve cases. We then discuss how such a case repository could assist in AI alignment, both through directly acting as precedents to ground acceptable behaviors, and as a medium for individuals and communities to engage in moral reasoning around AI., Comment: MP2 workshop @ NeurIPS 2023

Our interdisciplinary study investigates how effectively U.S. laws confront the challenges posed by Generative AI to human values. Through an analysis of diverse hypothetical scenarios crafted during an expert workshop, we have identified notable gaps and uncertainties within the existing legal framework regarding the protection of fundamental values, such as privacy, autonomy, dignity, diversity, equity, and physical/mental well-being. Constitutional and civil rights, it appears, may not provide sufficient protection against AI-generated discriminatory outputs. Furthermore, even if we exclude the liability shield provided by Section 230, proving causation for defamation and product liability claims is a challenging endeavor due to the intricate and opaque nature of AI systems. To address the unique and unforeseeable threats posed by Generative AI, we advocate for legal frameworks that evolve to recognize new threats and provide proactive, auditable guidelines to industry stakeholders. Addressing these issues requires deep interdisciplinary collaborations to identify harms, values, and mitigation strategies., Comment: 25 pages, 7 figures