AI systems are becoming increasingly intertwined with human life. In order to effectively collaborate with humans and ensure safety, AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions. Human moral judgments are often guided by rules, but not always. A central challenge for AI safety is capturing the flexibility of the human moral mind -- the ability to determine when a rule should be broken, especially in novel or unusual situations. In this paper, we present a novel challenge set consisting of moral exception question answering (MoralExceptQA) of cases that involve potentially permissible moral exceptions - inspired by recent moral psychology studies. Using a state-of-the-art large language model (LLM) as a basis, we propose a novel moral chain of thought (MoralCoT) prompting strategy that combines the strengths of LLMs with theories of moral reasoning developed in cognitive science to predict human moral judgments. MoralCoT outperforms seven existing LLMs by 6.2% F1, suggesting that modeling human reasoning might be necessary to capture the flexibility of the human moral mind. We also conduct a detailed error analysis to suggest directions for future work to improve AI safety using MoralExceptQA.

AI systems are becoming increasingly intertwined with human life. In order to effectively collaborate with humans and ensure safety, AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions. Human moral judgments are often guided by rules, but not always. A central challenge for AI safety is capturing the flexibility of the human moral mind -- the ability to determine when a rule should be broken, especially in novel or unusual situations. In this paper, we present a novel challenge set consisting of moral exception question answering (MoralExceptQA) of cases that involve potentially permissible moral exceptions – inspired by recent moral psychology studies.

In the face of rapidly expanding online medical literature, automated systems for aggregating and summarizing information are becoming increasingly crucial for healthcare professionals and patients. Large Language Models (LLMs), with their advanced generative capabilities, have shown promise in various NLP tasks, and their potential in the healthcare domain, particularly for Closed-Book Generative QnA, is significant. However, the performance of these models in domain-specific tasks such as medical Q&A remains largely unexplored. This study aims to fill this gap by comparing the performance of general and medical-specific distilled LMs for medical Q&A. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of fine-tuning domain-specific LMs and compare the performance of different families of Language Models. The study will address critical questions about these models' reliability, comparative performance, and effectiveness in the context of medical Q&A. The findings will provide valuable insights into the suitability of different LMs for specific applications in the medical domain.