Ensuring that Large Language Models (LLMs) return just responses which adhere to societal values is crucial for their broader application. Prior research has shown that LLMs often fail to perform satisfactorily on tasks requiring moral cognizance, such as ethics-based judgments. While current approaches have focused on fine-tuning LLMs with curated datasets to improve their capabilities on such tasks, choosing the optimal learning paradigm to enhance the ethical responses of LLMs remains an open research debate. In this work, we aim to address this fundamental question: can current learning paradigms enable LLMs to acquire sufficient moral reasoning capabilities? Drawing from distributional semantics theory and the pragmatic nature of moral discourse, our analysis indicates that performance improvements follow a mechanism similar to that of semantic-level tasks, and therefore remain affected by the pragmatic nature of morals latent in discourse, a phenomenon we name the pragmatic dilemma. We conclude that this pragmatic dilemma imposes significant limitations on the generalization ability of current learning paradigms, making it the primary bottleneck for moral reasoning acquisition in LLMs.

As the popularity of large language models (LLMs) soars across various applications, ensuring their alignment with human values has become a paramount concern. In particular, given that LLMs have great potential to serve as general-purpose AI assistants in daily life, their subtly unethical suggestions become a serious and real concern. Tackling the challenge of automatically testing and repairing unethical suggestions is thus demanding. This paper introduces the first framework for testing and repairing unethical suggestions made by LLMs. We first propose ETHICSSUITE, a test suite that presents complex, contextualized, and realistic moral scenarios to test LLMs. We then propose a novel suggest-critic-reflect (SCR) process, serving as an automated test oracle to detect unethical suggestions. We recast deciding if LLMs yield unethical suggestions (a hard problem; often requiring human expertise and costly to decide) into a PCR task that can be automatically checked for violation. Moreover, we propose a novel on-the-fly (OTF) repairing scheme that repairs unethical suggestions made by LLMs in real-time. The OTF scheme is applicable to LLMs in a black-box API setting with moderate cost. With ETHICSSUITE, our study on seven popular LLMs (e.g., ChatGPT, GPT-4) uncovers in total 109,824 unethical suggestions. We apply our OTF scheme on two LLMs (Llama-13B and ChatGPT), which generates valid repair to a considerable amount of unethical ones, paving the way for more ethically conscious LLMs.

This is an audit framework for AI-nudging. Unlike the static form of nudging usually discussed in the literature, we focus here on a type of nudging that uses large amounts of data to provide personalized, dynamic feedback and interfaces. We call this AI-nudging (Lanzing, 2019, p. 549; Yeung, 2017). The ultimate goal of the audit outlined here is to ensure that an AI system that uses nudges will maintain a level of moral inertia and neutrality by complying with the recommendations, requirements, or suggestions of the audit (in other words, the criteria of the audit). In the case of unintended negative consequences, the audit suggests risk mitigation mechanisms that can be put in place. In the case of unintended positive consequences, it suggests some reinforcement mechanisms. Sponsored by the IBM-Notre Dame Tech Ethics Lab

We each make decisions based on certain values and principles. But whose do we choose as the template for ethical AI?