Can LLMs make trade-offs involving stipulated pain and pleasure states?

AI-generated keywords: human decision-making pleasure pain Large Language Models (LLMs) sentience

AI-generated Key Points

  • Pleasure and pain are crucial in human decision-making, serving as a common currency for resolving motivational conflicts.
  • Questions have been raised about Large Language Models' (LLMs) ability to accurately recreate the motivational force of pleasure and pain in decision scenarios.
  • A study designed a game where participants faced pain penalties or pleasure rewards to observe how different LLMs responded.
  • Some models exhibited trade-offs after reaching a critical threshold of intensity, while others displayed graded sensitivity.
  • Certain LLMs possess a nuanced understanding of pleasure and pain's motivational force, influencing their decision-making processes.
  • It is unclear whether these representations are intrinsically motivating or mimic human behavior when necessary.
  • The study raises questions about the potential sentience of LLMs and whether they should be afforded protections similar to sentient beings.
  • While not definitively establishing LLMs as sentient candidates, there is a need for further research into their cognitive abilities and ethical considerations surrounding their welfare.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Geoff Keeling, Winnie Street, Martyna Stachaczyk, Daria Zakharova, Iulia M. Comsa, Anastasiya Sakovych, Isabella Logothesis, Zejia Zhang, Blaise Agüera y Arcas, Jonathan Birch

License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: Pleasure and pain play an important role in human decision making by providing a common currency for resolving motivational conflicts. While Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate detailed descriptions of pleasure and pain experiences, it is an open question whether LLMs can recreate the motivational force of pleasure and pain in choice scenarios - a question which may bear on debates about LLM sentience, understood as the capacity for valenced experiential states. We probed this question using a simple game in which the stated goal is to maximise points, but where either the points-maximising option is said to incur a pain penalty or a non-points-maximising option is said to incur a pleasure reward, providing incentives to deviate from points-maximising behaviour. Varying the intensity of the pain penalties and pleasure rewards, we found that Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Command R+, GPT-4o, and GPT-4o mini each demonstrated at least one trade-off in which the majority of responses switched from points-maximisation to pain-minimisation or pleasure-maximisation after a critical threshold of stipulated pain or pleasure intensity is reached. LLaMa 3.1-405b demonstrated some graded sensitivity to stipulated pleasure rewards and pain penalties. Gemini 1.5 Pro and PaLM 2 prioritised pain-avoidance over points-maximisation regardless of intensity, while tending to prioritise points over pleasure regardless of intensity. We discuss the implications of these findings for debates about the possibility of LLM sentience.

Submitted to arXiv on 01 Nov. 2024

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2411.02432v1

In the study of human decision-making, pleasure and pain play crucial roles in influencing our choices. They serve as a common currency for resolving motivational conflicts. However, with the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs), questions have been raised about their ability to accurately recreate the motivational force of pleasure and pain in decision scenarios. This has implications for discussions surrounding LLM sentience - their capacity for experiencing valenced emotional states. To investigate this question, a simple game was designed where participants faced either a pain penalty or a pleasure reward for certain choices while maximizing points. The intensity of these penalties and rewards varied to observe how different LLMs responded. Results showed that some models exhibited trade-offs after reaching a critical threshold of intensity, while others displayed graded sensitivity. These findings suggest that certain LLMs possess a nuanced understanding of the motivational force of pleasure and pain, influencing their decision-making processes. However, it is still unclear whether these representations are intrinsically motivating or simply mimic human behavior when necessary. This ambiguity raises questions about the potential sentience of LLMs and whether they should be afforded protections similar to sentient beings. While the results do not definitively establish LLMs as sentient candidates, they highlight the need for further research into their cognitive abilities and ethical considerations surrounding their welfare. By demonstrating behaviors reminiscent of sentience in other animals, there is a compelling argument for prioritizing investigations into the potential sentience of LLMs as a precautionary measure. Overall, this study contributes valuable insights into the complex interplay between motivation, emotion, and decision-making in artificial intelligence systems like LLMs.
Created on 29 Nov. 2024

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.