How might messages about large language models (LLMs) found in public discourse influence the way people think about and interact with these models? To explore this question, we randomly assigned participants (N = 470) to watch short informational videos presenting LLMs as either machines, tools, or companions -- or to watch no video. We then assessed how strongly they believed LLMs to possess various mental capacities, such as the ability to have intentions or remember things. We found that participants who watched video messages presenting LLMs as companions reported believing that LLMs more fully possessed these capacities than did participants in other groups. In a follow-up study (N = 604), we replicated these findings and found nuanced effects on how these videos also impact people's reliance on LLM-generated responses when seeking out factual information. Together, these studies suggest that messages about LLMs -- beyond technical advances -- may shape what people believe about these systems and how they rely on LLM-generated responses.

Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing, raising the risk that users will rely on these responses as if they were correct. Mitigating such overreliance is a key challenge. Through a think-aloud study in which participants use an LLM-infused application to answer objective questions, we identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance: explanations (supporting details for answers), inconsistencies in explanations, and sources. Through a large-scale, pre-registered, controlled experiment (N=308), we isolate and study the effects of these features on users' reliance, accuracy, and other measures. We find that the presence of explanations increases reliance on both correct and incorrect responses. However, we observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies. We discuss the implications of these findings for fostering appropriate reliance on LLMs.

Despite the proliferation of explainable AI (XAI) methods, little is understood about end-users’ explainability needs and behaviors around XAI explanations. To address this gap and contribute to understanding how explainability can support human-AI interaction, we conducted a mixed-methods study with 20 end-users of a real-world AI application, the Merlin bird identification app, and inquired about their XAI needs, uses, and perceptions. We found that participants desire practically useful information that can improve their collaboration with the AI, more so than technical system details. Relatedly, participants intended to use XAI explanations for various purposes beyond understanding the AI’s outputs: calibrating trust, improving their task skills, changing their behavior to supply better inputs to the AI, and giving constructive feedback to developers. Finally, among existing XAI approaches, participants preferred part-based explanations that resemble human reasoning and explanations. We discuss the implications of our findings and provide recommendations for future XAI design.

Concept-based interpretability methods aim to explain a deep neural network model's components and predictions using a pre-defined set of semantic concepts. These methods evaluate a trained model on a new, “probe” dataset and correlate the model's outputs with concepts labeled in that dataset. Despite their popularity, they suffer from limitations that are not well-understood and articulated in the literature. In this work, we identify and analyze three commonly overlooked factors in concept-based explanations. First, we find that the choice of the probe dataset has a profound impact on the generated explanations. Our analysis reveals that different probe datasets lead to very different explanations, suggesting that the generated explanations are not generalizable outside the probe dataset. Second, we find that concepts in the probe dataset are often harder to learn than the target classes they are used to explain, calling into question the correctness of the explanations. We argue that only easily learnable concepts should be used in concept-based explanations. Finally, while existing methods use hundreds or even thousands of concepts, our human studies reveal a much stricter upper bound of 32 concepts or less, beyond which the explanations are much less practically useful. We discuss the implications of our findings and provide suggestions for future development of concept-based interpretability methods. Code for our analysis and user interface can be found at https://github.com/princetonvisualai/OverlookedFactors

Fairness in visual recognition is becoming a prominent and critical topic of discussion as recognition systems are deployed at scale in the real world. Models trained from data in which target labels are correlated with protected attributes (e.g., gender, race) are known to learn and exploit those correlations. In this work, we introduce a method for training accurate target classifiers while mitigating biases that stem from these correlations. We use GANs to generate realistic-looking images, and perturb these images in the underlying latent space to generate training data that is balanced for each protected attribute. We augment the original dataset with this generated data, and empirically demonstrate that target classifiers trained on the augmented dataset exhibit a number of both quantitative and qualitative benefits. We conduct a thorough evaluation across multiple target labels and protected attributes in the CelebA dataset, and provide an in-depth analysis and comparison to existing literature in the space. Code can be found at https://github.com/princetonvisualai/gan-debiasing.

We study image segmentation from an information-theoretic perspective, proposing a novel adversarial method that performs unsupervised segmentation by partitioning images into maximally independent sets. More specifically, we group image pixels into foreground and background, with the goal of minimizing predictability of one set from the other. An easily computed loss drives a greedy search process to maximize inpainting error over these partitions. Our method does not involve training deep networks, is computationally cheap, class-agnostic, and even applicable in isolation to a single unlabeled image. Experiments demonstrate that it achieves a new state-of-the-art in unsupervised segmentation quality, while being substantially faster and more general than competing approaches.1