Cognitive Network Science Reveals Bias in GPT-3, GPT-3.5 Turbo, and GPT-4 Mirroring Math Anxiety in High-School Students

IF 3.7 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Big Data and Cognitive Computing Pub Date : 2023-06-27 DOI:10.3390/bdcc7030124
Katherine Abramski, Salvatore Citraro, L. Lombardi, Giulio Rossetti, Massimo Stella
{"title":"Cognitive Network Science Reveals Bias in GPT-3, GPT-3.5 Turbo, and GPT-4 Mirroring Math Anxiety in High-School Students","authors":"Katherine Abramski, Salvatore Citraro, L. Lombardi, Giulio Rossetti, Massimo Stella","doi":"10.3390/bdcc7030124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly integrated into our lives. Hence, it is important to understand the biases present in their outputs in order to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes, which originate in our own flawed ways of thinking. This challenge requires developing new benchmarks and methods for quantifying affective and semantic bias, keeping in mind that LLMs act as psycho-social mirrors that reflect the views and tendencies that are prevalent in society. One such tendency that has harmful negative effects is the global phenomenon of anxiety toward math and STEM subjects. In this study, we introduce a novel application of network science and cognitive psychology to understand biases towards math and STEM fields in LLMs from ChatGPT, such as GPT-3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. Specifically, we use behavioral forma mentis networks (BFMNs) to understand how these LLMs frame math and STEM disciplines in relation to other concepts. We use data obtained by probing the three LLMs in a language generation task that has previously been applied to humans. Our findings indicate that LLMs have negative perceptions of math and STEM fields, associating math with negative concepts in 6 cases out of 10. We observe significant differences across OpenAI’s models: newer versions (i.e., GPT-4) produce 5× semantically richer, more emotionally polarized perceptions with fewer negative associations compared to older versions and N=159 high-school students. These findings suggest that advances in the architecture of LLMs may lead to increasingly less biased models that could even perhaps someday aid in reducing harmful stereotypes in society rather than perpetuating them.","PeriodicalId":36397,"journal":{"name":"Big Data and Cognitive Computing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Big Data and Cognitive Computing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7030124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly integrated into our lives. Hence, it is important to understand the biases present in their outputs in order to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes, which originate in our own flawed ways of thinking. This challenge requires developing new benchmarks and methods for quantifying affective and semantic bias, keeping in mind that LLMs act as psycho-social mirrors that reflect the views and tendencies that are prevalent in society. One such tendency that has harmful negative effects is the global phenomenon of anxiety toward math and STEM subjects. In this study, we introduce a novel application of network science and cognitive psychology to understand biases towards math and STEM fields in LLMs from ChatGPT, such as GPT-3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. Specifically, we use behavioral forma mentis networks (BFMNs) to understand how these LLMs frame math and STEM disciplines in relation to other concepts. We use data obtained by probing the three LLMs in a language generation task that has previously been applied to humans. Our findings indicate that LLMs have negative perceptions of math and STEM fields, associating math with negative concepts in 6 cases out of 10. We observe significant differences across OpenAI’s models: newer versions (i.e., GPT-4) produce 5× semantically richer, more emotionally polarized perceptions with fewer negative associations compared to older versions and N=159 high-school students. These findings suggest that advances in the architecture of LLMs may lead to increasingly less biased models that could even perhaps someday aid in reducing harmful stereotypes in society rather than perpetuating them.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认知网络科学揭示GPT-3、GPT-3.5Turbo和GPT-4的偏差反映了高中生的数学焦虑
大型语言模型(LLM)正日益融入我们的生活。因此,重要的是要了解其产出中存在的偏见,以避免有害的刻板印象长期存在,这些刻板印象源于我们自己有缺陷的思维方式。这一挑战需要开发新的基准和方法来量化情感和语义偏见,记住LLM是反映社会中普遍存在的观点和趋势的心理社会镜子。一种具有有害负面影响的趋势是对数学和STEM科目的全球焦虑现象。在这项研究中,我们介绍了网络科学和认知心理学的新应用,以了解ChatGPT LLM中对数学和STEM领域的偏见,如GPT-3、GPT-3.5和GPT-4。具体而言,我们使用行为形式心理网络(BFMNs)来理解这些LLM如何将数学和STEM学科与其他概念联系起来。我们使用通过在以前应用于人类的语言生成任务中探测三个LLM而获得的数据。我们的研究结果表明,LLM对数学和STEM领域有负面看法,在10种情况中有6种情况将数学与负面概念联系在一起。我们观察到OpenAI模型之间的显著差异:与旧版本和N=159名高中生相比,新版本(即GPT-4)产生了5倍语义更丰富、情绪更两极分化的感知,负面联想更少。这些发现表明,LLM架构的进步可能会导致偏见越来越少的模型,甚至有一天可能有助于减少社会中有害的刻板印象,而不是使其永久化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Big Data and Cognitive Computing
Big Data and Cognitive Computing Business, Management and Accounting-Management Information Systems
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
8.10%
发文量
128
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Survey of Incremental Deep Learning for Defect Detection in Manufacturing BNMI-DINA: A Bayesian Cognitive Diagnosis Model for Enhanced Personalized Learning Semantic Similarity of Common Verbal Expressions in Older Adults through a Pre-Trained Model Knowledge-Based and Generative-AI-Driven Pedagogical Conversational Agents: A Comparative Study of Grice’s Cooperative Principles and Trust Distributed Bayesian Inference for Large-Scale IoT Systems
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1