about
Large language models have developed a higher-order theory of mind (arxiv.org)
17 points by some-unique-x on Jul 2, 2024 | hide | past | pdf | 4 comments on HN

In plain words: A hand-written set of questions tests whether AI chatbots can follow nested thoughts, like "I think that you believe that she knows," and compares five with adult humans. The two best matched adult scores overall, and one beat adults on six-step chains.

Abstract · LLMs achieve adult human performance on higher-order theory of mind tasks

This paper examines the extent to which large language models (LLMs) have developed higher-order theory of mind (ToM); the human ability to reason about multiple mental and emotional states in a recursive manner (e.g. I think that you believe that she knows). This paper builds on prior work by introducing a handwritten test suite -- Multi-Order Theory of Mind Q&A -- and using it to compare the performance of five LLMs to a newly gathered adult human benchmark. We find that GPT-4 and Flan-PaLM reach adult-level and near adult-level performance on ToM tasks overall, and that GPT-4 exceeds adult performance on 6th order inferences. Our results suggest that there is an interplay between model size and finetuning for the realisation of ToM abilities, and that the best-performing LLMs have developed a generalised capacity for ToM. Given the role that higher-order ToM plays in a wide range of cooperative and competitive human behaviours, these findings have significant implications for user-facing LLM applications.

Winnie Street, John Oliver Siy, Geoff Keeling, Adrien Baranes, Benjamin Barnett, Michael McKibben, Tatenda Kanyere, Alison Lentz, Blaise Aguera y Arcas, Robin I. M. Dunbar
arXiv:2405.18870 · cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.HC · submitted May 29, 2024 · updated May 31, 2024
abstract · pdf · html

add comment on HN
Also discussed: Jun 2024 (2 points, 1 comment) · May 2024 (1 point, 2 comments)

These models are static snapshots of an arbitrary level of intelligence. Are there any small LLMs which are not static and can keep updating in real time with external or internal feedback?
That talk[1] (also paper[2]) covering some of this by the Microsoft team involved with the unfettered GPT-4 model certainly shifted my views last year at a time when until then it was more common to see downplaying about LLMs based on prior gen models. Recently saw an AI safety specialist who also become more concerned about the rapidity of progress cite their research.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbIk7-JPB2c

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712

Proving theory of mind in LLMs is certainly one step toward recognizing that they are well on the path of acquiring "human-like" intelligence - if there are still people around who doubt that (proof of which would be if the ensuing discussion centers around if this is still just guessing the next token or whether hallucinations are proof of permanent unintelligence, etc).

Theory of mind is obviously coupled with the recognition that we can be outsmarted - so this type of research is crucial in order to gauge what stage we are on.

I liked this discussion from a while back with Tim Lee and Robert Wright talking about ToM: https://youtu.be/yAJkmwn8jDo?si=3_9cSdqQBriM58SA&t=2488 (particularly the bit about how the model correctly called a complex case of schadenfreude)