How (dis)similar are the learning trajectories of vision-language models and children? Recent modeling work has attempted to understand the gap between models'

How (dis)similar are the learning trajectories of vision-language models and children? Recent modeling work has attempted to understand the gap between models'

Multimodal AI models capable of associating images and text hold promise for numerous domains, ranging from automated image captioning to accessibility applications for blind and low-vision users. However, uncertainty about bias has in some cases limited their adoption and availability. In the present work, we study 43 CLIP vision-language models to determine whether they learn human-like facial impression biases, and we find evidence that such biases are reflected across three distinct CLIP model families. We show for the first time that the the degree to which a bias is shared across a society predicts the degree to which it is reflected in a CLIP model. Human-like impressions of visually unobservable attributes, like trustworthiness and sexuality, emerge only in models trained on the largest dataset, indicating that a better fit to uncurated cultural data results in the reproduction of increasingly subtle social biases. Moreover, we use a hierarchical clustering approach to show that dataset size predicts the extent to which the underlying structure of facial impression bias resembles that of facial impression bias in humans. Finally, we show that Stable Diffusion models employing CLIP as a text encoder learn facial impression biases, and that these biases intersect with racial biases in Stable Diffusion XL-Turbo. While pretrained CLIP models may prove useful for scientific studies of bias, they will also require significant dataset curation when intended for use as general-purpose models in a zero-shot setting.

How (dis)similar are the learning trajectories of vision-language models and children? Recent modeling work has attempted to understand the gap between models' and humans' data efficiency by constructing models trained on less data, especially multimodal naturalistic data. However, such models are often evaluated on adult-level benchmarks, with limited breadth in language abilities tested, and without direct comparison to behavioral data. We introduce DevBench, a multimodal benchmark comprising seven language evaluation tasks spanning the domains of lexical, syntactic, and semantic ability, with behavioral data from both children and adults. We evaluate a set of vision-language models on these tasks, comparing models and humans not only on accuracy but on their response patterns. Across tasks, models exhibit variation in their closeness to human response patterns, and models that perform better on a task also more closely resemble human behavioral responses. We also examine the developmental trajectory of OpenCLIP over training, finding that greater training results in closer approximations to adult response patterns. DevBench thus provides a benchmark for comparing models to human language development. These comparisons highlight ways in which model and human language learning processes diverge, providing insight into entry points for improving language models.