REVIEW 1 cited by
A Statistical Case Against Empirical Human-AI Alignment
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Empirical human-AI alignment aims to make AI systems act in line with observed human behavior. While noble in its goals, we argue that empirical alignment can inadvertently introduce statistical biases that warrant caution. This position paper thus advocates against naive empirical alignment, offering prescriptive alignment and a posteriori empirical alignment as alternatives. We substantiate our principled argument by tangible examples like human-centric decoding of language models.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Statistical Multicriteria Evaluation of LLM-Generated Text
Using generalized stochastic dominance, the authors find that human-written text completions are not significantly outperformed by five LLM decoding strategies across mixed cardinal and ordinal quality metrics.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.