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

Discussion