Large Language Models (LLMs) are known for their remarkable ability to generate synthesized 'knowledge', such as text documents, music, images, etc. However, there is a huge gap between LLM's and human capabilities for understanding abstract concepts and reasoning. We discuss these issues in a larger philosophical context of human knowledge acquisition and the Turing test. In addition, we illustrate the limitations of LLMs by analyzing GPT-4 responses to questions ranging from science and math to common sense reasoning. These examples show that GPT-4 can often imitate human reasoning, even though it lacks understanding. However, LLM responses are synthesized from a large LLM model trained on all available data. In contrast, human understanding is based on a small number of abstract concepts. Based on this distinction, we discuss the impact of LLMs on acquisition of human knowledge and education.

Large language models (LLMs) are already being piloted for clinical use in hospital systems like NYU Langone, Dana-Farber and the NHS. A proposed deployment use case is psychotherapy, where a LLM-powered chatbot can treat a patient undergoing a mental health crisis. Deployment of LLMs for mental health response could hypothetically broaden access to psychotherapy and provide new possibilities for personalizing care. However, recent high-profile failures, like damaging dieting advice offered by the Tessa chatbot to patients with eating disorders, have led to doubt about their reliability in high-stakes and safety-critical settings. In this work, we develop an evaluation framework for determining whether LLM response is a viable and ethical path forward for the automation of mental health treatment. Using human evaluation with trained clinicians and automatic quality-of-care metrics grounded in psychology research, we compare the responses provided by peer-to-peer responders to those provided by a state-of-the-art LLM. We show that LLMs like GPT-4 use implicit and explicit cues to infer patient demographics like race. We then show that there are statistically significant discrepancies between patient subgroups: Responses to Black posters consistently have lower empathy than for any other demographic group (2%-13% lower than the control group). Promisingly, we do find that the manner in which responses are generated significantly impacts the quality of the response. We conclude by proposing safety guidelines for the potential deployment of LLMs for mental health response.

GPT-4 demonstrates high accuracy in medical QA tasks, leading with an accuracy of 86.70%, followed by Med-PaLM 2 at 86.50%. However, around 14% of errors remain. Additionally, current works use GPT-4 to only predict the correct option without providing any explanation and thus do not provide any insight into the thinking process and reasoning used by GPT-4 or other LLMs. Therefore, we introduce a new domain-specific error taxonomy derived from collaboration with medical students. Our GPT-4 USMLE Error (G4UE) dataset comprises 4153 GPT-4 correct responses and 919 incorrect responses to the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) respectively. These responses are quite long (258 words on average), containing detailed explanations from GPT-4 justifying the selected option. We then launch a large-scale annotation study using the Potato annotation platform and recruit 44 medical experts through Prolific, a well-known crowdsourcing platform. We annotated 300 out of these 919 incorrect data points at a granular level for different classes and created a multi-label span to identify the reasons behind the error. In our annotated dataset, a substantial portion of GPT-4's incorrect responses is categorized as a "Reasonable response by GPT-4," by annotators. This sheds light on the challenge of discerning explanations that may lead to incorrect options, even among trained medical professionals. We also provide medical concepts and medical semantic predications extracted using the SemRep tool for every data point. We believe that it will aid in evaluating the ability of LLMs to answer complex medical questions. We make the resources available at https://github.com/roysoumya/usmle-gpt4-error-taxonomy .

To thoroughly assess the mathematical reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), we need to carefully curate evaluation datasets covering diverse mathematical concepts and mathematical problems at different difficulty levels. In pursuit of this objective, we propose FineMath in this paper, a fine-grained mathematical evaluation benchmark dataset for assessing Chinese LLMs. FineMath is created to cover the major key mathematical concepts taught in elementary school math, which are further divided into 17 categories of math word problems, enabling in-depth analysis of mathematical reasoning abilities of LLMs. All the 17 categories of math word problems are manually annotated with their difficulty levels according to the number of reasoning steps required to solve these problems. We conduct extensive experiments on a wide range of LLMs on FineMath and find that there is still considerable room for improvements in terms of mathematical reasoning capability of Chinese LLMs. We also carry out an in-depth analysis on the evaluation process and methods that have been overlooked previously. These two factors significantly influence the model results and our understanding of their mathematical reasoning capabilities. The dataset will be publicly available soon.

The capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 to engage in conversation with humans presents a significant leap in Artificial Intelligence (AI) development that is broadly considered to be disruptive for certain technological areas. A human interacting with an LLM may indeed perceive the LLM as an agent with a personality, to the extent that some have even called them sentient (De Cosmo, 2022). While we, of course, do not subscribe to the notion that LLMs are sentient - nor do we believe it is as yet clear what it means to even ask whether an LLM has a personality - there is still the appearance of agency and personality to the human user interacting with the system. Subjecting an LLM to psychometric tests is thus, in our view, less an assessment of some actual personality that the LLM may or may not have, but rather an assessment of the personality or personalities perceived by the human user. As such, our interest is not only in the actual personality profile(s) resulting from the tests, but also in the question whether the profiles are stable over re-tests and how they vary with different (relevant) parameter settings. At the same time, the results beg the question why the results of the tests are what they are.

The human brain is naturally equipped to comprehend and interpret visual information rapidly. When confronted with complex problems or concepts, we use flowcharts, sketches, and diagrams to aid our thought process. Leveraging this inherent ability can significantly enhance logical reasoning. However, current Large Language Models (LLMs) do not utilize such visual intuition to help their thinking. Even the most advanced version language models (e.g., GPT-4V and LLaVA) merely align images into textual space, which means their reasoning processes remain purely verbal. To mitigate such limitations, we present a Chain of Images (CoI) approach, which can convert complex language reasoning problems to simple pattern recognition by generating a series of images as intermediate representations. Furthermore, we have developed a CoI evaluation dataset encompassing 15 distinct domains where images can intuitively aid problem-solving. Based on this dataset, we aim to construct a benchmark to assess the capability of future multimodal large-scale models to leverage images for reasoning. In supporting our CoI reasoning, we introduce a symbolic multimodal large language model (SyMLLM) that generates images strictly based on language instructions and accepts both text and image as input. Experiments on Geometry, Chess and Common Sense tasks sourced from the CoI evaluation dataset show that CoI improves performance significantly over the pure-language Chain of Thoughts (CoT) baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/GraphPKU/CoI.

Intrigued by the claims of emergent reasoning capabilities in LLMs trained on general web corpora, in this paper, we set out to investigate their planning capabilities. We aim to evaluate (1) the effectiveness of LLMs in generating plans autonomously in commonsense planning tasks and (2) the potential of LLMs in LLM-Modulo settings where they act as a source of heuristic guidance for external planners and verifiers. We conduct a systematic study by generating a suite of instances on domains similar to the ones employed in the International Planning Competition and evaluate LLMs in two distinct modes: autonomous and heuristic. Our findings reveal that LLMs' ability to generate executable plans autonomously is rather limited, with the best model (GPT-4) having an average success rate of ~12% across the domains. However, the results in the LLM-Modulo setting show more promise. In the LLM-Modulo setting, we demonstrate that LLM-generated plans can improve the search process for underlying sound planners and additionally show that external verifiers can help provide feedback on the generated plans and back-prompt the LLM for better plan generation.