Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Intentional Biases in LLM Responses

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.07611 v1 pith:6LGK74IL submitted 2023-11-11 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords biasesmodelsresponsesdifferencesgpt-4intentionallanguagelarge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In this study we intentionally introduce biases into large language model responses in an attempt to create specific personas for interactive media purposes. We explore the differences between open source models such as Falcon-7b and the GPT-4 model from Open AI, and we quantify some differences in responses afforded by the two systems. We find that the guardrails in the GPT-4 mixture of experts models with a supervisor, while useful in assuring AI alignment in general, are detrimental in trying to construct personas with a variety of uncommon viewpoints. This study aims to set the groundwork for future exploration in intentional biases of large language models such that these practices can be applied in the creative field, and new forms of media.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Verified Language Processing with Hybrid Explainability: A Technical Report

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A logic-based NLP pipeline converts sentences to first-order logic and uses possible-world truth tables to classify implication, inconsistency, and indifference, with perfect scores on three small self-built datasets.

Pith tools