亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

Large language models (LLMs) are recognized as systems that closely mimic aspects of human intelligence. This capability has attracted attention from the social science community, who see the potential in leveraging LLMs to replace human participants in experiments, thereby reducing research costs and complexity. In this paper, we introduce a framework for large language models personification, including a strategy for constructing virtual characters' life stories from the ground up, a Multi-Agent Cognitive Mechanism capable of simulating human cognitive processes, and a psychology-guided evaluation method to assess human simulations from both self and observational perspectives. Experimental results demonstrate that our constructed simulacra can produce personified responses that align with their target characters. Our work is a preliminary exploration which offers great potential in practical applications. All the code and datasets will be released, with the hope of inspiring further investigations.

Aligning language models (LMs) with human opinion is challenging yet vital to enhance their grasp of human values, preferences, and beliefs. We present ChOiRe, a four-step framework to predict human opinion which differentially models the user explicit personae (i.e. demographic or ideological attributes) that are manually declared, and implicit personae inferred from user historical opinions. ChOiRe consists of (i) an LM analyzing the user explicit personae to filter out irrelevant attributes; (ii) the LM ranking the implicit persona opinions into a preferential list; (iii) Chain-of-Opinion (CoO) reasoning, where the LM sequentially analyzes the explicit personae and the most relevant implicit personae to perform opinion prediction; (iv) and where ChOiRe executes Step (iii) CoO multiple times with increasingly larger lists of implicit personae to overcome insufficient personae information to infer a final result. ChOiRe achieves new state-of-the-art effectiveness with limited inference calls, improving previous techniques significantly by 3.22%. We also show that ChOiRe Steps (i) and (ii) can significantly better fine-tune opinion-aligned models, by up to 18.44%.

By providing external information to large language models (LLMs), tool augmentation (including retrieval augmentation) has emerged as a promising solution for addressing the limitations of LLMs' static parametric memory. However, how receptive are LLMs to such external evidence, especially when the evidence conflicts with their parametric memory? We present the first comprehensive and controlled investigation into the behavior of LLMs when encountering knowledge conflicts. We propose a systematic framework to elicit high-quality parametric memory from LLMs and construct the corresponding counter-memory, which enables us to conduct a series of controlled experiments. Our investigation reveals seemingly contradicting behaviors of LLMs. On the one hand, different from prior wisdom, we find that LLMs can be highly receptive to external evidence even when that conflicts with their parametric memory, given that the external evidence is coherent and convincing. On the other hand, LLMs also demonstrate a strong confirmation bias when the external evidence contains some information that is consistent with their parametric memory, despite being presented with conflicting evidence at the same time. These results pose important implications that are worth careful consideration for the further development and deployment of tool- and retrieval-augmented LLMs. Resources are available at //github.com/OSU-NLP-Group/LLM-Knowledge-Conflict.

As language models are often deployed as chatbot assistants, it becomes a virtue for models to engage in conversations in a user's first language. While these models are trained on a wide range of languages, a comprehensive evaluation of their proficiency in low-resource languages such as Korean has been lacking. In this work, we introduce KoDialogBench, a benchmark designed to assess language models' conversational capabilities in Korean. To this end, we collect native Korean dialogues on daily topics from public sources, or translate dialogues from other languages. We then structure these conversations into diverse test datasets, spanning from dialogue comprehension to response selection tasks. Leveraging the proposed benchmark, we conduct extensive evaluations and analyses of various language models to measure a foundational understanding of Korean dialogues. Experimental results indicate that there exists significant room for improvement in models' conversation skills. Furthermore, our in-depth comparisons across different language models highlight the effectiveness of recent training techniques in enhancing conversational proficiency. We anticipate that KoDialogBench will promote the progress towards conversation-aware Korean language models.

Despite the many use cases for large language models (LLMs) in creating personalized chatbots, there has been limited research on evaluating the extent to which the behaviors of personalized LLMs accurately and consistently reflect specific personality traits. We consider studying the behavior of LLM-based agents which we refer to as LLM personas and present a case study with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to investigate whether LLMs can generate content that aligns with their assigned personality profiles. To this end, we simulate distinct LLM personas based on the Big Five personality model, have them complete the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI) personality test and a story writing task, and then assess their essays with automatic and human evaluations. Results show that LLM personas' self-reported BFI scores are consistent with their designated personality types, with large effect sizes observed across five traits. Additionally, LLM personas' writings have emerging representative linguistic patterns for personality traits when compared with a human writing corpus. Furthermore, human evaluation shows that humans can perceive some personality traits with an accuracy of up to 80\%. Interestingly, the accuracy drops significantly when the annotators were informed of the AI's authorship.

Given large language models' (LLMs) increasing integration into workplace software, it is important to examine how biases in the models may impact workers. For example, stylistic biases in the language suggested by LLMs may cause feelings of alienation and result in increased labor for individuals or groups whose style does not match. We examine how such writer-style bias impacts inclusion, control, and ownership over the work when co-writing with LLMs. In an online experiment, participants wrote hypothetical job promotion requests using either hesitant or self-assured autocomplete suggestions from an LLM and reported their subsequent perceptions. We found that the style of the AI model did not impact perceived inclusion. However, individuals with higher perceived inclusion did perceive greater agency and ownership, an effect more strongly impacting participants of minoritized genders. Feelings of inclusion mitigated a loss of control and agency when accepting more AI suggestions.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable multilingual capabilities without being pre-trained on specially curated multilingual parallel corpora. It remains a challenging problem to explain the underlying mechanisms by which LLMs process multilingual texts. In this paper, we delve into the composition of Transformer architectures in LLMs to pinpoint language-specific regions. Specially, we propose a novel detection method, language activation probability entropy (LAPE), to identify language-specific neurons within LLMs. Based on LAPE, we conduct comprehensive experiments on two representative LLMs, namely LLaMA-2 and BLOOM. Our findings indicate that LLMs' proficiency in processing a particular language is predominantly due to a small subset of neurons, primarily situated in the models' top and bottom layers. Furthermore, we showcase the feasibility to "steer" the output language of LLMs by selectively activating or deactivating language-specific neurons. Our research provides important evidence to the understanding and exploration of the multilingual capabilities of LLMs.

Large language models (LLM) have recently attracted surging interest due to their outstanding capabilities across various domains. However, enabling efficient LLM inference is challenging due to its autoregressive decoding that generates tokens only one at a time. Although research works apply pruning or quantization to speed up LLM inference, they typically require fine-tuning the LLM, incurring significant time and economic costs. Meanwhile, speculative decoding has been proposed to use small speculative models (SSMs) to accelerate the inference of LLM. However, the low acceptance rate of SSM and the high verification cost of LLM prohibit further performance improvement of inference. In this paper, we propose Minions, an LLM inference system that accelerates LLM inference with a collective and adaptive speculative generation. Specifically, Minions proposes a majority-voted mechanism to leverage multiple SSMs to jointly speculate the outputs of LLM, which improves the inference performance without introducing prohibitive computation costs for LLM. To better trade off the number of tokens speculated from SSM and the verification cost of LLM, Minions proposes an adaptive mechanism to dynamically determine the optimal speculation length of SSM, which can achieve better inference performance across different models, datasets, and hyper-parameters. In addition, Minions decouples the SSM decoding and LLM verification efficiently and adopts a pipelined execution mechanism to further improve the inference performance of LLM. By comparing with the state-of-the-art LLM inference systems, we demonstrate that Minions can achieve higher inference throughput and lower inference time.

Driven by the surge in code generation using large language models (LLMs), numerous benchmarks have emerged to evaluate these LLMs capabilities. We conducted a large-scale human evaluation of HumanEval and MBPP, two popular benchmarks for Python code generation, analyzing their diversity and difficulty. Our findings unveil a critical bias towards a limited set of programming concepts, neglecting most of the other concepts entirely. Furthermore, we uncover a worrying prevalence of easy tasks, potentially inflating model performance estimations. To address these limitations, we propose a novel benchmark, PythonSaga, featuring 185 hand-crafted prompts on a balanced representation of 38 programming concepts across diverse difficulty levels.

Large language models (LLMs) have made significant strides in reasoning capabilities, with ongoing efforts to refine their reasoning through self-correction. However, recent studies suggest that self-correction can be limited or even counterproductive without external accurate knowledge, raising questions about the limits and effectiveness of self-correction. In this paper, we aim to enhance LLM's self-checking capabilities by meticulously designing training data, thereby improving the accuracy of self-correction. We conduct a detailed analysis of error types in mathematical reasoning and develop a tailored prompt, termed "Step CoT Check". Then we construct a checking-correction dataset for training models. After integrating the original CoT data and checking-correction data for training, we observe that models could improve their self-checking capabilities, thereby enhancing their self-correction capacity and eliminating the need for external feedback or ground truth labels to ascertain the endpoint of correction. We compare the performance of models fine-tuned with the "Step CoT Check" prompt against those refined using other promps within the context of checking-correction data. The "Step CoT Check" outperforms the other two check formats in model with lager parameters, providing more precise feedback thus achieving a higher rate of correctness. For reproducibility, all the datasets and codes are provided in //github.com/bammt/Learn-to-check.