Sources

542 sources

Source

Hua & Artzi (2024)

Talk Less, Interact Better: Evaluating In-context Conversational Adaptation in Multimodal LLMs

arXiv

Find It

DOI

Abstract

Humans spontaneously use increasingly efficient language as interactions progress, by adapting and forming ad-hoc conventions. This phenomenon has been studied extensively using reference games, showing properties of human language that go beyond relaying intents. It remains unexplored whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs) similarly increase communication efficiency during interactions, and what mechanisms they may adopt for this purpose. We introduce ICCA, an automated framework to evaluate such conversational adaptation as an in-context behavior in MLLMs. We evaluate several state-of-the-art MLLMs, and observe that while they may understand the increasingly efficient language of their interlocutor, they do not spontaneously make their own language more efficient over time. This latter ability can only be elicited in some models (e.g., GPT-4) with heavy-handed prompting. This shows that this property of linguistic interaction does not arise from current training regimes, even though it is a common hallmark of human language. ICCA is available at https://github.com/lil-lab/ICCA.

Reference

Hua, Y., & Artzi, Y. (2024). Talk Less, Interact Better: Evaluating In-context Conversational Adaptation in Multimodal LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.01417. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2408.01417

What Rests on This

1 mechanism cites this source. Each finding below is quoted as it appears on that mechanism's own page.

Partner Model Representational Structures

  • Measured in AI

    Within one conversation, five multimodal AI models (models that read images as well as text) replayed 54 human-human tangram-style games from 108 online participants, with the whole game history kept in their context window, meaning what they can see in the current conversation; without explicit instruction GPT-4, Gemini 1.0 Pro Vision and Claude 3 Opus (2023-2024) made their descriptions longer rather than shorter across rounds, IDEFICS and LLaVA repeated themselves, and as listeners GPT-4 reached 88.9 to 92.5% against about 99.5% for humans while IDEFICS fell to chance