As text generation systems’ outputs are increasingly anthropomorphic—perceived as human-like—scholars have also increasingly raised concerns about how such outputs can lead to harmful outcomes, such as users over-relying or developing emotional dependence on these systems. How to intervene on such system outputs to mitigate anthropomorphic behaviors and their attendant harmful outcomes, however, remains understudied. With this work, we aim to provide empirical and theoretical grounding for developing such interventions. To do so, we compile an inventory of interventions grounded both in prior literature and a crowdsourcing study where participants edited system outputs to make them less human-like. Drawing on this inventory, we also develop a conceptual framework to help characterize the landscape of possible interventions, articulate distinctions between different types of interventions, and provide a theoretical basis for evaluating the effectiveness of different interventions.

Should LLMs generate language that makes them seem human? Human-like language might improve user experience, but might also lead to deception, overreliance, and stereotyping. Assessing these potential impacts requires a systematic way to measure human-like tone in LLM outputs. We introduce HumT and SocioT, metrics for human-like tone and other dimensions of social perceptions in text data based on relative probabilities from an LLM. By measuring HumT across preference and usage datasets, we find that users prefer less human-like outputs from LLMs in many contexts. HumT also offers insights into the perceptions and impacts of anthropomorphism: human-like LLM outputs are highly correlated with warmth, social closeness, femininity, and low status, which are closely linked to the aforementioned harms. We introduce DumT, a method using HumT to systematically control and reduce the degree of human-like tone while preserving model performance. DumT offers a practical approach for mitigating risks associated with anthropomorphic language generation.

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human-like characteristics to non-human entities, has shaped conversations about the impacts and possibilities of technology. We present AnthroScore, an automatic metric of implicit anthropomorphism in language. We use a masked language model to quantify how non-human entities are implicitly framed as human by the surrounding context. We show that AnthroScore corresponds with human judgments of anthropomorphism and dimensions of anthropomorphism described in social science literature. Motivated by concerns of misleading anthropomorphism in computer science discourse, we use AnthroScore to analyze 15 years of research papers and downstream news articles. In research papers, we find that anthropomorphism has steadily increased over time, and that papers related to language models have the most anthropomorphism. Within ACL papers, temporal increases in anthropomorphism are correlated with key neural advancements. Building upon concerns of scientific misinformation in mass media, we identify higher levels of anthropomorphism in news headlines compared to the research papers they cite. Since AnthroScore is lexicon-free, it can be directly applied to a wide range of text sources.

The use of words to convey speaker’s intent is traditionally distinguished from the ‘mention’ of words for quoting what someone said, or pointing out properties of a word. Here we show that computationally modeling this use-mention distinction is crucial for dealing with counterspeech online. Counterspeech that refutes problematic content often mentions harmful language but is not harmful itself (e.g., calling a vaccine dangerous is not the same as expressing disapproval of someone for calling vaccines dangerous). We show that even recent language models fail at distinguishing use from mention, and that this failure propagates to two key downstream tasks: misinformation and hate speech detection, resulting in censorship of counterspeech. We introduce prompting mitigations that teach the use-mention distinction, and show they reduce these errors. Our work highlights the importance of the use-mention distinction for NLP and CSS and offers ways to address it.

To recognize and mitigate harms from large language models (LLMs), we need to understand the prevalence and nuances of stereotypes in LLM outputs. Toward this end, we present Marked Personas, a prompt-based method to measure stereotypes in LLMs for intersectional demographic groups without any lexicon or data labeling. Grounded in the sociolinguistic concept of markedness (which characterizes explicitly linguistically marked categories versus unmarked defaults), our proposed method is twofold: 1) prompting an LLM to generate personas, i.e., natural language descriptions, of the target demographic group alongside personas of unmarked, default groups; 2) identifying the words that significantly distinguish personas of the target group from corresponding unmarked ones. We find that the portrayals generated by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 contain higher rates of racial stereotypes than human-written portrayals using the same prompts. The words distinguishing personas of marked (non-white, non-male) groups reflect patterns of othering and exoticizing these demographics. An intersectional lens further reveals tropes that dominate portrayals of marginalized groups, such as tropicalism and the hypersexualization of minoritized women. These representational harms have concerning implications for downstream applications like story generation.

Recent work has aimed to capture nuances of human behavior by using LLMs to simulate responses from particular demographics in settings like social science experiments and public opinion surveys. However, there are currently no established ways to discuss or evaluate the quality of such LLM simulations. Moreover, there is growing concern that these LLM simulations are flattened caricatures of the personas that they aim to simulate, failing to capture the multidimensionality of people and perpetuating stereotypes. To bridge these gaps, we present CoMPosT, a framework to characterize LLM simulations using four dimensions: Context, Model, Persona, and Topic. We use this framework to measure open-ended LLM simulations’ susceptibility to caricature, defined via two criteria: individuation and exaggeration. We evaluate the level of caricature in scenarios from existing work on LLM simulations. We find that for GPT-4, simulations of certain demographics (political and marginalized groups) and topics (general, uncontroversial) are highly susceptible to caricature.