Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

How Far Can We Extract Diverse Perspectives from Large Language Models?

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 2311.09799 v3 pith:QP4E7S6F submitted 2023-11-16 cs.CL

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

Collecting diverse human opinions is costly and challenging. This leads to a recent trend in exploiting large language models (LLMs) for generating diverse data for potential scalable and efficient solutions. However, the extent to which LLMs can generate diverse perspectives on subjective topics is still unclear. In this study, we explore LLMs' capacity of generating diverse perspectives and rationales on subjective topics such as social norms and argumentative texts. We introduce the problem of extracting maximum diversity from LLMs. Motivated by how humans form opinions based on values, we propose a criteria-based prompting technique to ground diverse opinions. To see how far we can extract diverse perspectives from LLMs, or called diversity coverage, we employ a step-by-step recall prompting to generate more outputs from the model iteratively. Our methods, applied to various tasks, show that LLMs can indeed produce diverse opinions according to the degree of task subjectivity. We also find that LLM's performance of extracting maximum diversity is on par with human.

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. Truth Sleuth and Trend Bender: AI Agents to fact-check YouTube videos and influence opinions

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A prototype two-agent system using RAG fact-checking and self-evaluating comment generation can label claims and post comments on YouTube, but its headline accuracy rests on filtered data and a mismatched comparison.

Pith tools