Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) is taking on increasingly autonomous roles, e.g., browsing the web as a research assistant and managing money. But specifying goals and restrictions for AI behavior is difficult. Similar to how parties to a legal contract cannot foresee every potential "if-then" contingency of their future relationship, we cannot specify desired AI behavior for all circumstances. Legal standards facilitate robust communication of inherently vague and underspecified goals. Instructions (in the case of language models, "prompts") that employ legal standards will allow AI agents to develop shared understandings of the spirit of a directive that generalize expectations regarding acceptable actions to take in unspecified states of the world. Standards have built-in context that is lacking from other goal specification languages, such as plain language and programming languages. Through an empirical study on thousands of evaluation labels we constructed from U.S. court opinions, we demonstrate that large language models (LLMs) are beginning to exhibit an "understanding" of one of the most relevant legal standards for AI agents: fiduciary obligations. Performance comparisons across models suggest that, as LLMs continue to exhibit improved core capabilities, their legal standards understanding will also continue to improve. OpenAI's latest LLM has 78% accuracy on our data, their previous release has 73% accuracy, and a model from their 2020 GPT-3 paper has 27% accuracy (worse than random). Our research is an initial step toward a framework for evaluating AI understanding of legal standards more broadly, and for conducting reinforcement learning with legal feedback (RLLF).

Is the Pope Catholic? Yes, the Pope is Catholic. Generative Evaluation of Non-Literal Intent Resolution in LLMs

The Moral Turing Test: Evaluating Human-LLM Alignment in Moral Decision-Making

Large Language Models: The Need for Nuance in Current Debates and a Pragmatic Perspective on Understanding

Large Language Models as Fiduciaries: A Case Study Toward Robustly Communicating With Artificial Intelligence Through Legal Standards

Alignment Between the Decision-Making Logic of LLMs and Human Cognition: A Case Study on Legal LLMs

Large language models and linguistic intentionality

Exploring the psychology of LLMs' Moral and Legal Reasoning

"Is the Pope Catholic?" Applying Chain-of-Thought Reasoning to Understanding Conversational Implicatures

Do Large Language Models Exhibit Cognitive Dissonance? Studying the Difference Between Revealed Beliefs and Stated Answers

LLM Cognitive Judgements Differ From Human

Are Large Language Models Aligned with People's Social Intuitions for Human-Robot Interactions?

Are Large Language Models Moral Hypocrites? A Study Based on Moral Foundations

LLMs' Understanding of Natural Language Revealed

Can LLMs replace Neil deGrasse Tyson? Evaluating the Reliability of LLMs as Science Communicators

How FaR Are Large Language Models From Agents with Theory-of-Mind?

Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs

MAGNIFICo: Evaluating the In-Context Learning Ability of Large Language Models to Generalize to Novel Interpretations

Large Language Models are as persuasive as humans, but how? About the cognitive effort and moral-emotional language of LLM arguments

Intention and Context Elicitation with Large Language Models in the Legal Aid Intake Process

Do LLMs Exhibit Human-Like Reasoning? Evaluating Theory of Mind in LLMs for Open-Ended Responses