Large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential as tools to support an expanding range of decision-making tasks. However, given their training on human (created) data, LLMs can inherit both societal biases against protected groups, as well as be subject to cognitive bias. Such human-like bias can impede fair and explainable decisions made with LLM assistance. Our work introduces BiasBuster, a framework designed to uncover, evaluate, and mitigate cognitive bias in LLMs, particularly in high-stakes decision-making tasks. Inspired by prior research in psychology and cognitive sciences, we develop a dataset containing 16,800 prompts to evaluate different cognitive biases (e.g., prompt-induced, sequential, inherent). We test various bias mitigation strategies, amidst proposing a novel method using LLMs to debias their own prompts. Our analysis provides a comprehensive picture on the presence and effects of cognitive bias across different commercial and open-source models. We demonstrate that our self-help debiasing effectively mitigate cognitive bias without having to manually craft examples for each bias type.

Developmental AI is a bootstrapping approach where embodied AIs start with innate competences and learn by interacting with the world. They develop abilities in small steps along a bio-inspired trajectory. However, developmental AIs have not yet reached the abilities of young children. In contrast, mainstream approaches for creating AIs have led to valuable AI systems and impressive feats. These approaches include deep learning and generative approaches (e.g., large language models) and manually constructed symbolic approaches. Manually constructed AIs are brittle even in circumscribed domains. Generative AIs are helpful on average, but they can make strange mistakes and not notice them. They sometimes lack common sense and social alignment. This position paper lays out prospects, gaps, and challenges for augmenting AI mainstream approaches with developmental AI. The ambition is to create data-rich experientially based foundation models and human-compatible, resilient, and trustworthy AIs. This research aims to produce AIs that learn to communicate, establish common ground, read critically, consider the provenance of information, test hypotheses, and collaborate. A virtuous multidisciplinary research cycle has led to developmental AIs with capabilities for multimodal perception, object recognition, and manipulation. Computational models for hierarchical planning, abstraction discovery, curiosity, and language acquisition exist but need to be adapted to an embodied learning approach. They need to bridge competence gaps involving nonverbal communication, speech, reading, and writing. Aspirationally, developmental AIs would learn, share what they learn, and collaborate to achieve high standards. The approach would make the creation of AIs more democratic, enabling more people to train, test, build on, and replicate AIs.

Natural language processing has made progress in incorporating human context into its models, but whether it is more effective to use group-wise attributes (e.g., over-45-year-olds) or model individuals remains open. Group attributes are technically easier but coarse: not all 45-year-olds write the same way. In contrast, modeling individuals captures the complexity of each person's identity. It allows for a more personalized representation, but we may have to model an infinite number of users and require data that may be impossible to get. We compare modeling human context via group attributes, individual users, and combined approaches. Combining group and individual features significantly benefits user-level regression tasks like age estimation or personality assessment from a user's documents. Modeling individual users significantly improves the performance of single document-level classification tasks like stance and topic detection. We also find that individual-user modeling does well even without user's historical data.

Heuristics and cognitive biases are an integral part of human decision-making. Automatically detecting a particular cognitive bias could enable intelligent tools to provide better decision-support. Detecting the presence of a cognitive bias currently requires a hand-crafted experiment and human interpretation. Our research aims to explore conversational agents as an effective tool to measure various cognitive biases in different domains. Our proposed conversational agent incorporates a bias measurement mechanism that is informed by the existing experimental designs and various experimental tasks identified in the literature. Our initial experiments to measure framing and loss-aversion biases indicate that the conversational agents can be effectively used to measure the biases.

This review aims to contribute to the quest for artificial general intelligence by examining neuroscience and cognitive psychology methods for potential inspiration. Despite the impressive advancements achieved by deep learning models in various domains, they still have shortcomings in abstract reasoning and causal understanding. Such capabilities should be ultimately integrated into artificial intelligence systems in order to surpass data-driven limitations and support decision making in a way more similar to human intelligence. This work is a vertical review that attempts a wide-ranging exploration of brain function, spanning from lower-level biological neurons, spiking neural networks, and neuronal ensembles to higher-level concepts such as brain anatomy, vector symbolic architectures, cognitive and categorization models, and cognitive architectures. The hope is that these concepts may offer insights for solutions in artificial general intelligence.

AI alignment aims to make AI systems behave in line with human intentions and values. As AI systems grow more capable, so do risks from misalignment. To provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the alignment field, in this survey, we delve into the core concepts, methodology, and practice of alignment. First, we identify four principles as the key objectives of AI alignment: Robustness, Interpretability, Controllability, and Ethicality (RICE). Guided by these four principles, we outline the landscape of current alignment research and decompose them into two key components: forward alignment and backward alignment. The former aims to make AI systems aligned via alignment training, while the latter aims to gain evidence about the systems' alignment and govern them appropriately to avoid exacerbating misalignment risks. On forward alignment, we discuss techniques for learning from feedback and learning under distribution shift. On backward alignment, we discuss assurance techniques and governance practices. We also release and continually update the website (www.alignmentsurvey.com) which features tutorials, collections of papers, blog posts, and other resources.

Human perception, memory and decision-making are impacted by tens of cognitive biases and heuristics that influence our actions and decisions. Despite the pervasiveness of such biases, they are generally not leveraged by today's Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems that model human behavior and interact with humans. In this theoretical paper, we claim that the future of human-machine collaboration will entail the development of AI systems that model, understand and possibly replicate human cognitive biases. We propose the need for a research agenda on the interplay between human cognitive biases and Artificial Intelligence. We categorize existing cognitive biases from the perspective of AI systems, identify three broad areas of interest and outline research directions for the design of AI systems that have a better understanding of our own biases.

Computational models are powerful tools for understanding human cognition and behavior. They let us express our theories clearly and precisely, and offer predictions that can be subtle and often counter-intuitive. However, this same richness and ability to surprise means our scientific intuitions and traditional tools are ill-suited to designing experiments to test and compare these models. To avoid these pitfalls and realize the full potential of computational modeling, we require tools to design experiments that provide clear answers about what models explain human behavior and the auxiliary assumptions those models must make. Bayesian optimal experimental design (BOED) formalizes the search for optimal experimental designs by identifying experiments that are expected to yield informative data. In this work, we provide a tutorial on leveraging recent advances in BOED and machine learning to find optimal experiments for any kind of model that we can simulate data from, and show how by-products of this procedure allow for quick and straightforward evaluation of models and their parameters against real experimental data. As a case study, we consider theories of how people balance exploration and exploitation in multi-armed bandit decision-making tasks. We validate the presented approach using simulations and a real-world experiment. As compared to experimental designs commonly used in the literature, we show that our optimal designs more efficiently determine which of a set of models best account for individual human behavior, and more efficiently characterize behavior given a preferred model. At the same time, formalizing a scientific question such that it can be adequately addressed with BOED can be challenging and we discuss several potential caveats and pitfalls that practitioners should be aware of. We provide code and tutorial notebooks to replicate all analyses.

The success of neural language models (LMs) on many technological tasks has brought about their potential relevance as scientific theories of language despite some clear differences between LM training and child language acquisition. In this paper we argue that some of the most prominent benchmarks for evaluating the syntactic capacities of LMs may not be sufficiently rigorous. In particular, we show that the template-based benchmarks lack the structural diversity commonly found in the theoretical and psychological studies of language. When trained on small-scale data modeling child language acquisition, the LMs can be readily matched by simple baseline models. We advocate for the use of the readily available, carefully curated datasets that have been evaluated for gradient acceptability by large pools of native speakers and are designed to probe the structural basis of grammar specifically. On one such dataset, the LI-Adger dataset, LMs evaluate sentences in a way inconsistent with human language users. We conclude with suggestions for better connecting LMs with the empirical study of child language acquisition.

This paper proposes a new cognitive model, acting as the main component of an AGI agent. The model is introduced in its mature intelligence state, and as an extension of previous models, DENN, and especially AKREM, by including operational models (frames/classes) and will. This model's core assumption is that cognition is about operating on accumulated knowledge, with the guidance of an appropriate will. Also, we assume that the actions, part of knowledge, are learning to be aligned with will, during the evolution phase that precedes the mature intelligence state. In addition, this model is mainly based on the duality principle in every known intelligent aspect, such as exhibiting both top-down and bottom-up model learning, generalization verse specialization, and more. Furthermore, a holistic approach is advocated for AGI designing, and cognition under constraints or efficiency is proposed, in the form of reusability and simplicity. Finally, reaching this mature state is described via a cognitive evolution from infancy to adulthood, utilizing a consolidation principle. The final product of this cognitive model is a dynamic operational memory of models and instances. Lastly, some examples and preliminary ideas for the evolution phase to reach the mature state are presented.