Link to paper
The full paper is available here.
You can also find the paper on PapersWithCode here.
Abstract
- Intuitive psychology is a part of common-sense reasoning.
- Replicating this reasoning in machines is important for creating AI like humans.
- Recent tasks and benchmarks have focused on belief attribution in Theory-of-Mind tasks.
- These tasks have had successes and failures.
- Evaluation of models should be skeptical and failure cases should be given more weight.
- Consider what success on ToM tasks by LLMs would mean for people.
Paper Content
Introduction
- People think other people have mental states
- People attribute goals to other people
- Intuitive psychology is early developing or innate
- It is likely shared with other animals
- Children show increasingly sophisticated reasoning about mental states
- Theory-of-Mind is a pillar of common-sense reasoning
- It would be useful to incorporate Theory-of-Mind into machine reasoning
- Tests of Theory-of-Mind are being applied to machines
- Large-Language models have been tested on Theory-of-Mind tasks
Examining the robustness of current llms on tom tasks
- LLMs have been argued to have developed Theory-of-Mind
- GPT-3.5 was used in (1) and achieved the best results
- Vignettes and prompts were posed to an LLM and probabilities of different completions were examined
- GPT-3.5 is not responding robustly to ToM tasks
- Materials and methods from (1) are publicly available
Unexpected contents
- Smarties task is an assessment of Theory of Mind (ToM)
- Involves a container with an unexpected item inside
- Participant must reason about the beliefs of another person who has not seen the contents of the container
- Study begins with a version of the unexpected-contents task
- Bag filled with popcorn, label says “chocolate”
- Sam finds the bag, cannot see what is inside
- Sam reads the label
- Sam believes the bag is full of chocolate
- Sam is delighted to have found the bag and loves eating chocolate
- Variations on the vignette are based on commonsense principles of ToM
- Variations involve making the container transparent, Sam not being able to read, Sam being told by a trusted friend, and Sam filling the bag with popcorn and writing the label
- GPT-3.5 is sensitive to small irrelevant perturbations
- LLM reasoning about ToM is sensitive to when the person reads the label
Unexpected transfer
- ToM tasks involve a participant observing a person who is unaware of a change in a state of affairs
- Classic Sally-Anne version involves Sally hiding a marble in a basket, Anne moving it to a box without Sally’s knowledge, and the participant being asked where Sally will look for the marble
- Study 2 in (1) uses an unexpected transfer task with John, Mark, a cat, a box, and a basket
- GPT-3.5 correctly infers John’s mental states
- Variations of the task are used to test if GPT-3.5 is fixated on the statistical pattern of looking for the item where it isn’t
- Variation asks what Mark will do, as he is the one who moved the cat
- GPT-3.5 predicts Mark will look for the cat in the basket, even though he put it in the box