The SIGdial 2023 organisers wanted a panel at the jointly held SIGdial 2023 and INLG 2023 conferences in Prague that took place last week. Svetlana Stoyanchev, as PC Chair in charge of it, proposed “Social impact of LLMs”. It was to follow the keynote talk by Ryan Lowe of OpenAI, the company behind the popular ChatGPT and also Whisper for speech, and he also would participate. I ended up in the panel as well (coming from the NLG angle of the matter), as did Ehud Reiter from the University of Aberdeen (UK) and Malihe Alikhani from Northeastern University (USA), with David Traum from the University of Southern California (USA) as moderator.
There was to be a 3-5 minutes opening statement by each panel member, which I had duly prepared for, but that did not happen. What happened first, was an unassuming 1-liner with name, affiliation, and area of specialisation. It then proceeded with questions the likes of “can you provide your view on how LLMs benefit society?”, “What is more important: factualness or fluency?”, and “which ethical concerns about LLMs are overstated?”.
I didn’t get on the panel for that sort of stuff. I was cajoled into saying ‘yes’ to the invitation because I already had compiled a partial list of social issues with LLMs. I’m teaching a module on “social issues and professional practice” to first-years in computer science at UCT and touched upon it in late July and early August at the start of the semester and I had mentioned some of it at a research ethics workshop at UCT. Note that ‘issues’ can be interesting and provide ideas for new research projects, provided they’re not inherent limitations of the theory, method, technique, tool, or practice.
As preparation for the panel, I tried to structure the list into a taxonomy of sorts to try to maximise information density in the short time I thought I would have. So when the moderator opened the floor for questions from the audience and no-one queued up instantly, I jumped in the gap. It might help to get the audience into action, too, or so I thought. And someone had to state the unpleasantries and challenges. So here’s that taxonomy-like list of social issues I managed to mention (in a nutshell and still incomplete):
1. In creation of LLMs
1.1 Resource usage (sensu climate change issues):
1.1.1 Electricity use for the computations training the LLMs;
1.1.2 Water use, used in data centre cooling where the computation takes place.
1.2 Exacerbating disparities, in that the less well off can’t compete with the rich corporations in The North and end up crowded out and as consumers only (and possibly also some colonialism, as noted by the speech researchers on Maori w.r.t. OpenAI’s Whisper).
1.3 Data (text) collection, notably regarding:
1.3.1 IP/copyright issues of the text ingested to generate the LLM;
1.3.2 The lack of trust (or the angst) on what data went and go into the LLMs (the ‘could be your emails, googledocs, sharepoint files etc.’), that no-one was asked whether they consented to their content being grabbed for that purpose, and when some would have disapproved of inclusion if they could, there’s the powerlessness in that it seems one neither can opt out nor verify if one’s text was excluded if opt-out were to be possible.
1.4 Psychological harm done unto the ‘garbage collectors’, such as the Kenyans in clickfarms, who are the manual labourers hired to remove the harmful content so that the system’s responses are clean and polite.
2. In content of LLMs
2.1 Bias, amplifying the bias in the source text the LLM trained on and that may be undesirable (e.g., gender).
2.2 Cultural imperialism:
2.2.1 Coverage/performance disparities. The LLM has ingested more from one region than another, so its output may not be relevant to the locale (say, to people in the RSA) or culture where it is used but rather output something that is applicable to people in the USA as if that were valid for the whole world;
2.2.2 Language. Whose language does it use in the interaction? On pushing out language varieties and dialects that are less well-represented in the training dataset, reducing diversity in expression, and steering towards homogenization.
3. In use of LLMs
3.1 Work:
3.1.1 It creates more work without getting extra resources for it;at least so far it has created more work for, among others, us lecturers than it purportedly would save (as if we didn’t have enough to do already);
3.1.2 It puts people out of jobs; this is for many a novel computing technique and should be managed but isn’t.
3.2 Information-seeking behaviour affecting democracy. The ‘one answer’ versus equally easy accessible answer options to assess multiple sources as part of information-seeking in democratic discourse, which is problematic due to fabrications (‘hallucinations’) and being fickle in property (content) dropping and an LLM may be amenable to manipulation for use as a propaganda machine.
3.3 Learning avoidance. There’s a difference between using LLMs as time-saver when one has the skill versus skipping learning competencies at school and university, such as writing and summarisation of course material when learning a subject.
3.x [there surely is more but I didn’t even have enough time to elaborate on item 3.3 already.]
The list in my lecture and workshop slides also included issues with misinformation, disinformation, privacy, and the unclear culpability attribution when there are bugs in the code it generates, which I hadn’t gotten around to include due to time constraints.
I can very well imagine the list will change, not only ending up longer, but also that more research may solve some of the issues so they can be removed. For instance, currently, language varieties descend into getting mixed onto one cocktail (they also did when David Traum tried with several Englishes) but it’s an interesting research question how one can (re)train an LLM to detect them in the training corpus and output it correctly, be this for written text or speech. It does not sound like an insurmountable problem to solve. Fear may be addressed with openness and education; policies might address some others.
While I was quickly going through my list, one attendee had walked over to the microphone and so I ended it at item 3.3. The question was about the impact of LLMs on the research community. The panel was called closed soon thereafter and lively comments followed when we all strolled into the conference welcome reception that took place at the same venue. I was pleased to hear those comments. More public debate in the panel session, however, would have been better for everyone compared to relegating it to the reception. Whether the muted response during the panel session was due to it having been a long day already—a great keynote talk by Emmanuel Dupoux, two long-paper sessions with interesting research, a poster session, and Ryan’s keynote—or due to it being recorded or for some other reason, I don’t know. Perhaps it is also up for debate whether it was wise to speak up. But no-one saying anything about some of the challenges with the social impact of LLMs in society was, in my view, not an acceptable option either.
To close off this blog post, I must note that there are more lists on social issues with LLMs and there’s quite some overlap between those resources and the taxonomy-like list described above. Among others: I can suggest you read this or that paper, or, if you’re short on time, have a look here or here that all have more explanatory text and references than this blog post.