A Comprehensive Analysis of Large Language Model Outputs: Similarity, Diversity, and Bias
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) represent a major step toward artificial general intelligence, significantly advancing our ability to interact with technology. While LLMs perform well on Natural Language Processing tasks -- such as translation, generation, code writing, and summarization -- questions remain about their output similarity, variability, and ethical implications. For instance, how similar are texts generated by the same model? How does this compare across different models? And which models best uphold ethical standards? To investigate, we used 5{,}000 prompts spanning diverse tasks like generation, explanation, and rewriting. This resulted in approximately 3 million texts from 12 LLMs, including proprietary and open-source systems from OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Mistral. Key findings include: (1) outputs from the same LLM are more similar to each other than to human-written texts; (2) models like WizardLM-2-8x22b generate highly similar outputs, while GPT-4 produces more varied responses; (3) LLM writing styles differ significantly, with Llama 3 and Mistral showing higher similarity, and GPT-4 standing out for distinctiveness; (4) differences in vocabulary and tone underscore the linguistic uniqueness of LLM-generated content; (5) some LLMs demonstrate greater gender balance and reduced bias. These results offer new insights into the behavior and diversity of LLM outputs, helping guide future development and ethical evaluation.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Measuring the Gap Between Human and LLM Research Ideas
LLM-generated research ideas cluster more around bridge-like opportunities and synthesis methods than the broader distribution seen in human papers.
-
Ex Ante Evaluation of AI-Induced Idea Diversity Collapse
Frontier LLMs generate creative ideas with excess population-level crowding below human-relative parity across tasks, but targeted generation protocols can reduce it.
-
First, Do No Harm (With LLMs): Mitigating Racial Bias via Agentic Workflows
All five tested LLMs deviated from US race-stratified disease distributions in synthetic case generation, while retrieval-based agentic workflows improved mean p-value by 0.0348, median p-value by 0.1166, and mean dif...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.