LLMs as mediators: Can they diagnose conflicts accurately?
Prior research indicates that to be able to mediate conflict, observers of disagreements between parties must be able to reliably distinguish the sources of their disagreement as stemming from differences in beliefs about what is true (causality) vs. differences in what they value (morality). In this paper, we test if OpenAI's Large Language Models GPT 3.5 and GPT 4 can perform this task and whether one or other type of disagreement proves particularly challenging for LLM's to diagnose. We replicate study 1 in Ko\c{c}ak et al. (2003), which employes a vignette design, with OpenAI's GPT 3.5 and GPT 4. We find that both LLMs have similar semantic understanding of the distinction between causal and moral codes as humans and can reliably distinguish between them. When asked to diagnose the source of disagreement in a conversation, both LLMs, compared to humans, exhibit a tendency to overestimate the extent of causal disagreement and underestimate the extent of moral disagreement in the moral misalignment condition. This tendency is especially pronounced for GPT 4 when using a proximate scale that relies on concrete language specific to an issue. GPT 3.5 does not perform as well as GPT4 or humans when using either the proximate or the distal scale. The study provides a first test of the potential for using LLMs to mediate conflict by diagnosing the root of disagreements in causal and evaluative codes.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Methods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
From Moderation to Mediation: Can LLMs Serve as Mediators in Online Flame Wars?
The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has opened new possibilities for AI for good applications. As LLMs increasingly mediate online communication, their potential to foster empathy and constructive dialo…
Psychometric Item Validation Using Virtual Respondents with Trait-Response Mediators
As psychometric surveys are increasingly used to assess the traits of large language models (LLMs), the need for scalable survey item generation suited for LLMs has also grown. A critical challenge here is ensuring the c…
SoCRATES: Towards Reliable Automated Evaluation of Proactive LLM Mediation across Domains and Socio-cognitive Variations
Evaluating LLM mediators remains challenging, as mediation unfolds as a real-time trajectory shaped by disputants' shifting emotions, intentions, and context. Existing testbeds rely on a few expert-authored domains, vary…
Machine Learning for Mediation in Armed Conflicts
Today's conflicts are becoming increasingly complex, fluid and fragmented, often involving a host of national and international actors with multiple and often divergent interests. This development poses significant chall…
BIG-bench Machine LearningPolistemics: Evaluating LLMs as Information Mediators in Politics & Elections
As LLMs increasingly mediate the political information citizens rely on, there is still no standardized way to assess whether they do so responsibly. We introduce Polistemics, a theory-grounded benchmark for evaluating L…