Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions
Recent advancements in general-purpose AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. However, the lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment. In particular, ML- and philosophy-oriented alignment research often views AI alignment as a static, unidirectional process (i.e., aiming to ensure that AI systems' objectives match humans) rather than an ongoing, mutual alignment problem. This perspective largely neglects the long-term interaction and dynamic changes of alignment. To understand these gaps, we introduce a systematic review of over 400 papers published between 2019 and January 2024, spanning multiple domains such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML). We characterize, define and scope human-AI alignment. From this, we present a conceptual framework of "Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment" to organize the literature from a human-centered perspective. This framework encompasses both 1) conventional studies of aligning AI to humans that ensures AI produces the intended outcomes determined by humans, and 2) a proposed concept of aligning humans to AI, which aims to help individuals and society adjust to AI advancements both cognitively and behaviorally. Additionally, we articulate the key findings derived from literature analysis, including literature gaps and trends, human values, and interaction techniques. To pave the way for future studies, we envision three key challenges and give recommendations for future research.
Code (1)
Tasks
PhilosophySimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
The Knowledge Alignment Problem: Bridging Human and External Knowledge for Large Language Models
Large language models often necessitate grounding on external knowledge to generate faithful and reliable answers. Yet even with the correct groundings in the reference, they can ignore them and rely on wrong groundings …
HallucinationLanguage ModelingLanguage ModellingClarifying Implicit and Underspecified Phrases in Instructional Text
Natural language inherently consists of implicit and underspecified phrases, which represent potential sources of misunderstanding. In this paper, we present a data set of such phrases in English from instructional texts…
Language ModelingLanguage ModellingSemEval-2022 Task 7: Identifying Plausible Clarifications of Implicit and Underspecified Phrases in Instructional Texts
We describe SemEval-2022 Task 7, a shared task on rating the plausibility of clarifications in instructional texts. The dataset for this task consists of manually clarified how-to guides for which we generated alternativ…
Pre-review to Peer review: Pitfalls of Automating Reviews using Large Language Models
Large Language Models are versatile general-task solvers, and their capabilities can truly assist people with scholarly peer review as \textit{pre-review} agents, if not as fully autonomous \textit{peer-review} agents. W…
How Closely Do LLM Reviews Align with Human Peer Review?
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reviews, yet existing evaluations rarely examine whether different providers align with both conference decisions and human reviewing priorities w…