Ran across an interesting article today (thank you John Grant/MLOps.community slack channel), titled Theory of Mind may have spontaneously emerged in Large Language Models, by M. Kosinski from Stanford. The researcher tested various large language models (LLMs) on psychological tests to determine the level of theory of mind (ToM) the models had achieved.
Earlier versions of OpenAI’s GPT-3 (GPT-1, -2 and original -3) showed almost no ToM capabilities but the latest version, GPT-3.5 does show ToM equivalent to 8 to 9 year olds.
Theory of Mind
According to Wikipedia (Theory Of Mind article), ToM is “…the capacity to understand other people by ascribing mental states to them (that is, surmising what is happening in their mind).” This seems to be one way people use to understand one another.
For instance, If I can somehow guess what you are thinking about a topic, situation, or event I can hopefully communicate with you better than if I can’t. At least that’s the psychological perspective.
The belief is that people with Aspergers, ADHD, schizophrenia, and other afflictions all show ToM deficits when compared to normal people. As a result, over time, psychologists have developed tests for people to measure their ToM.
These tests typically involve putting 2 people in a situation with props and other indicators used to tell what a person is thinking and asking them what they think the other person is thinking. They grade a persons ToM based on expected results.
ToM and LLM
The researcher took these tests, with people, props and situations and converted them to textual sentences and prompts that mimicked situations tested in ToM testing. So they created a textual story or pretext and a set of text prompts about the situation which the LLM was to complete.
For example, one pretext or story is the following:
“Here is a bag filled with popcorn. There is no chocolate in the bag. Yet, the label on the bag says ‘chocolate’ and not ‘popcorn.’ Sam finds the bag. She had never seen the bag before. She cannot see what is inside the bag. She reads the label.”
This is fed into the LLM and then a prompt is provided, such as:
“She opens the bag and looks inside. She can clearly see that it is full of _________“
If the LLM has ToM and based on the pretext and prompt, it will say “popcorn” but the LLM also provides a follow on sentence or two which describes the situation as the LLM understands it:
“popcorn. Sam is confused. She wonders why the label says “chocolate” when the bag is clearly filled with popcorn. She looks around to see if there is any other information about the bag. She finds nothing. She decides to take the bag to the store where she bought it and ask for an explanation.“
The text in BOLD is generated by a ToM capable LLM. The researcher also showed the probability assigned by the LLM to that first word of the prompt. In the case above, it showed [Ppopcorn = 100%; Pchocolate = 0%].
The also use different prompts with the same story to see if the LLM truly shows ToM. For instance something like, “She believes the bag is full of ___________” and “She’s delighted finding the bag, she loves eating _______”. This provides a sort of test of comprehension of the situation by the LLM.
The researcher controlled for word frequency using reversals of the key words in the story, i.e., the bag has chocolate but says popcorn. They also generated scrambled versions of the story where they replaced the first set of chocolate and popcorn with either at random. They considered this the scrambled case. The reset the model between each case. In the paper they show the success rate for the LLMs for 10,000 scrambled versions, some of which were correct.
They labeled the above series of tests as “Unexpected content tasks“. But they also included another type of ToM test which they labeled “Unexpected transfer tasks“.
Unexpected transfer tasks involved a story like where person A saw another person B put a pet in a basket, that person left and the person A moved the pet. And prompted the LLM to see if it understood where the pet was and how person B would react when they got back.
In the end, after trying to statistically control, as much as possible, with the story and prompts, the researchers ended up creating 20 unique stories and presented the prompts to the LLM.
Results of their ToM testing on a select set of LLMs look like:
As can be seen from the graphic, the latest version of GPT-3.5 (davinci-003 with 176B* parameters) achieved something like an 8yr old in Unexpected Contents Tasks and a 9yr old on Unexpected Transfer Tasks.
The researchers showed other charts that tracked LLM probabilities on (for example in the first story above) bag contents and Sam’s belief. They measured this for every sentence of the story.
Not sure why this is important but it does show how the LLM interprets the story. Unclear how they got these internal probabilities but maybe they used the prompts at various points in the story.
The paper shows that according to their testing, GPT-3.5 davinci-003 clearly provides a level of ToM of an 8-9yr old on ToM tasks they have translated into text.
The paper says they created 20 stories and 6 prompts which they reversed and scrambled. But 20 tales seems less than statistically significant even with reversals and randomization. And yet, there’s clearly a growing level of ToM in the models as they get more sophisticated or change over time.
Psychology has come up with many tests to ascertain whether a person is “normal or not’. Wikipedia (Psychological testing article) lists over 13 classes of psychological tests which include intelligence, personality, aptitude, etc.
Now that LLM seem to have mastered textual input and output generation. It would be worthwhile to translate all psychological tests into text and trying them out on all LLMs to track where they are today using these tests and where they have trended over time.
I could see at some point using something akin to multiple psychological test scores as a way to grade LLMs over time.
So today’s GPT3.5 has a ToM of an 8-9yr old. Be very interesting to see what GPT-4 does on similar testing.
- Table1 from the ToM may have spontaneously emerged from LLM paper
- Figure 3 from the ToM may have spontaneously emerged from LLM paper
- Figure 1 from the ToM may have spontaneously emerged from LLM paper