Students' ability to ask curious questions is a crucial skill that improves their learning processes. To train this skill, previous research has used a conversational agent that propose specific cues to prompt children's curiosity during learning. Despite showing pedagogical efficiency, this method is still limited since it relies on generating the said prompts by hand for each educational resource, which can be a very long and costly process. In this context, we leverage the advances in the natural language processing field and explore using a large language model (GPT-3) to automate the generation of this agent's curiosity-prompting cues to help children ask more and deeper questions. We then used this study to investigate a different curiosity-prompting behavior for the agent. The study was conducted with 75 students aged between 9 and 10. They either interacted with a hand-crafted conversational agent that proposes "closed" manually-extracted cues leading to predefined questions, a GPT-3-driven one that proposes the same type of cues, or a GPT-3-driven one that proposes "open" cues that can lead to several possible questions. Results showed a similar question-asking performance between children who had the two "closed" agents, but a significantly better one for participants with the "open" agent. Our first results suggest the validity of using GPT-3 to facilitate the implementation of curiosity-stimulating learning technologies. In a second step, we also show that GPT-3 can be efficient in proposing the relevant open cues that leave children with more autonomy to express their curiosity.

Many real-world applications of language models (LMs), such as code autocomplete and writing assistance, involve human-LM interaction, but the main LM benchmarks are non-interactive, where a system produces output without human intervention. To evaluate human-LM interaction, we develop a framework, Human-AI Language-based Interaction Evaluation (H-LINE), that expands non-interactive evaluation along three dimensions, capturing (i) the interactive process, not only the final output; (ii) the first-person subjective experience, not just a third-party assessment; and (iii) notions of preference beyond quality. We then design five tasks ranging from goal-oriented to open-ended to capture different forms of interaction. On four state-of-the-art LMs (three variants of OpenAI's GPT-3 and AI21's J1-Jumbo), we find that non-interactive performance does not always result in better human-LM interaction and that first-person and third-party metrics can diverge, suggesting the importance of examining the nuances of human-LM interaction.

Curiosity for machine agents has been a focus of lively research activity. The study of human and animal curiosity, particularly specific curiosity, has unearthed several properties that would offer important benefits for machine learners, but that have not yet been well-explored in machine intelligence. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive, multidisciplinary survey of the field of animal and machine curiosity. As a principal contribution of this work, we use this survey as a foundation to introduce and define what we consider to be five of the most important properties of specific curiosity: 1) directedness towards inostensible referents, 2) cessation when satisfied, 3) voluntary exposure, 4) transience, and 5) coherent long-term learning. As a second main contribution of this work, we show how these properties may be implemented together in a proof-of-concept reinforcement learning agent: we demonstrate how the properties manifest in the behaviour of this agent in a simple non-episodic grid-world environment that includes curiosity-inducing locations and induced targets of curiosity. As we would hope, our example of a computational specific curiosity agent exhibits short-term directed behaviour while updating long-term preferences to adaptively seek out curiosity-inducing situations. This work, therefore, presents a landmark synthesis and translation of specific curiosity to the domain of machine learning and reinforcement learning and provides a novel view into how specific curiosity operates and in the future might be integrated into the behaviour of goal-seeking, decision-making computational agents in complex environments.

情绪分析中最突出的任务是为文本分配情绪，并了解情绪如何在语言中表现出来。自然语言处理的一个重要观察结果是，即使没有明确提及情感名称，也可以通过单独参考事件来隐式传达情绪。在心理学中，被称为评估理论的情感理论类别旨在解释事件与情感之间的联系。评估可以被形式化为变量，通过他们认为相关的事件的人们的认知评估来衡量认知评估。其中包括评估事件是否是新颖的，如果该人认为自己负责，是否与自己的目标以及许多其他人保持一致。这样的评估解释了哪些情绪是基于事件开发的，例如，新颖的情况会引起惊喜或不确定后果的人可能引起恐惧。我们在文本中分析了评估理论对情绪分析的适用性，目的是理解注释者是否可以可靠地重建评估概念，如果可以通过文本分类器预测，以及评估概念是否有助于识别情感类别。为了实现这一目标，我们通过要求人们发短信描述触发特定情绪并披露其评估的事件来编译语料库。然后，我们要求读者重建文本中的情感和评估。这种设置使我们能够衡量是否可以纯粹从文本中恢复情绪和评估，并为判断模型的绩效指标提供人体基准。我们将文本分类方法与人类注释者的比较表明，两者都可以可靠地检测出具有相似性能的情绪和评估。我们进一步表明，评估概念改善了文本中情绪的分类。

Intelligent agents have great potential as facilitators of group conversation among older adults. However, little is known about how to design agents for this purpose and user group, especially in terms of agent embodiment. To this end, we conducted a mixed methods study of older adults' reactions to voice and body in a group conversation facilitation agent. Two agent forms with the same underlying artificial intelligence (AI) and voice system were compared: a humanoid robot and a voice assistant. One preliminary study (total n=24) and one experimental study comparing voice and body morphologies (n=36) were conducted with older adults and an experienced human facilitator. Findings revealed that the artificiality of the agent, regardless of its form, was beneficial for the socially uncomfortable task of conversation facilitation. Even so, talkative personality types had a poorer experience with the "bodied" robot version. Design implications and supplementary reactions, especially to agent voice, are also discussed.

事实证明，在学习环境中，社会智能代理（SIA）的部署在不同的应用领域具有多个优势。社会代理创作工具使场景设计师能够创造出对SIAS行为的高度控制的量身定制体验，但是，另一方面，这是有代价的，因为该方案及其创作的复杂性可能变得霸道。在本文中，我们介绍了可解释的社会代理创作工具的概念，目的是分析社会代理的创作工具是否可以理解和解释。为此，我们检查了创作工具Fatima-Toolkit是否可以理解，并且从作者的角度来看，其创作步骤可以解释。我们进行了两项用户研究，以定量评估Fatima-Toolkit的解释性，可理解性和透明度，从场景设计师的角度来看。关键发现之一是，法蒂玛 - 库尔基特（Fatima-Toolkit）的概念模型通常是可以理解的，但是基于情感的概念并不那么容易理解和使用。尽管关于Fatima-Toolkit的解释性有一些积极的方面，但仍需要取得进展，以实现完全可以解释的社会代理商创作工具。我们提供一组关键概念和可能的解决方案，可以指导开发人员构建此类工具。

最近十年表明，人们对机器人作为福祉教练的兴趣越来越大。但是，尚未提出针对机器人设计作为促进心理健康的教练的凝聚力和全面的准则。本文详细介绍了基于基于扎根理论方法的定性荟萃分析的设计和道德建议，该方法是通过三项以用户为中心的涉及机器人福祉教练的三个不同的以用户为中心进行的，即：（1）与参与性设计研究一起进行的。 11名参与者由两位潜在用户组成，他们与人类教练一起参加了简短的专注于解决方案的实践研究，以及不同学科的教练，（2）半结构化的个人访谈数据，这些数据来自20名参加积极心理学干预研究的参与者借助机器人福祉教练胡椒，（3）与3名积极心理学研究的参与者以及2名相关的福祉教练进行了一项参与式设计研究。在进行主题分析和定性荟萃分析之后，我们将收集到收敛性和不同主题的数据整理在一起，并从这些结果中提炼了一套设计准则和道德考虑。我们的发现可以在设计机器人心理福祉教练时考虑到关键方面的关键方面。

我们提出了一项探索性定性研究，以了解作家如何与下一页建议相互作用。尽管对建议系统对写作的影响进行了一些定量研究，但几乎没有定性的工作来理解作家如何与建议系统互动及其如何影响他们的写作过程 - 特别是针对非本地但英国作家的。我们进行了一项研究，要求业余作家分别写两部电影评论，一本没有建议。我们发现作家以各种复杂的方式与下一页建议互动 - 作家能够抽象建议的多个部分并将其纳入他们的写作中 - 即使他们不同意整个建议。建议系统对写作过程也有各种影响 - 以独特的方式为写作过程的不同方面做出了影响。我们提出了一种用于与GPT-2写作的作家 - 探索互动模型，用于电影评论写作任务，然后是该模型可用于未来研究的方式，并概述了研究和设计的机会。

最近围绕语言处理模型的复杂性的最新炒作使人们对机器获得了类似人类自然语言的指挥的乐观情绪。人工智能中自然语言理解的领域声称在这一领域取得了长足的进步，但是，在这方面和其他学科中使用“理解”的概念性清晰，使我们很难辨别我们实际上有多近的距离。目前的方法和剩余挑战的全面，跨学科的概述尚待进行。除了语言知识之外，这还需要考虑我们特定于物种的能力，以对，记忆，标签和传达我们（足够相似的）体现和位置经验。此外，测量实际约束需要严格分析当前模型的技术能力，以及对理论可能性和局限性的更深入的哲学反思。在本文中，我将所有这些观点（哲学，认知语言和技术）团结在一起，以揭开达到真实（人类般的）语言理解所涉及的挑战。通过解开当前方法固有的理论假设，我希望说明我们距离实现这一目标的实际程度，如果确实是目标。

There has been a recent resurgence in the area of explainable artificial intelligence as researchers and practitioners seek to make their algorithms more understandable. Much of this research is focused on explicitly explaining decisions or actions to a human observer, and it should not be controversial to say that looking at how humans explain to each other can serve as a useful starting point for explanation in artificial intelligence. However, it is fair to say that most work in explainable artificial intelligence uses only the researchers' intuition of what constitutes a 'good' explanation. There exists vast and valuable bodies of research in philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science of how people define, generate, select, evaluate, and present explanations, which argues that people employ certain cognitive biases and social expectations towards the explanation process. This paper argues that the field of explainable artificial intelligence should build on this existing research, and reviews relevant papers from philosophy, cognitive psychology/science, and social psychology, which study these topics. It draws out some important findings, and discusses ways that these can be infused with work on explainable artificial intelligence.

本文探讨了大语言模型的自然语言生成能力，并应用于编程课程中常见的两种学习资源类型。使用OpenAI Codex作为大语言模型，我们创建编程练习（包括示例解决方案和测试用例）和代码说明，从定性和定量上评估这些练习。我们的结果表明，大多数自动生成的内容既新颖又明智，在某些情况下可以按原样使用。在创建练习时，我们发现仅通过提供关键字作为模型输入来影响编程概念和它们所包含的上下文主题非常容易。我们的分析表明，大规模生成机器学习模型是指导者的工具，尽管仍然需要进行一些监督以确保生成的内容的质量在传递给学生之前。我们进一步讨论了OpenAI Codex和类似工具对入门编程教育的含义，并强调了未来的研究流，这些研究流有可能提高教师和学生的教育体验质量。

随着人工智能系统变得越来越强大和普遍，人们对机器的道德或缺乏道德的关注变得越来越关注。然而，向机器讲授道德是一项艰巨的任务，因为道德仍然是人类中最激烈的争论问题之一，更不用说AI了。但是，部署到数百万用户的现有AI系统已经在做出充满道德影响的决策，这构成了一个看似不可能的挑战：教学机器的道德意义，而人类继续努力努力。为了探索这一挑战，我们介绍了Delphi，这是一个基于深层神经网络的实验框架，直接训练了描述性道德判断，例如，“帮助朋友”通常是不错的，而“帮助朋友传播假新闻”不是。经验结果提供了对机器伦理的承诺和局限性的新见解。面对新的道德情况，德尔菲（Delphi）表现出强大的概括能力，而现成的神经网络模型表现出明显差的判断，包括不公正的偏见，证实了对明确教学机器的道德意义的必要性。然而，德尔菲并不完美，表现出对普遍性偏见和不一致的敏感性。尽管如此，我们还是展示了不完美的Delphi的积极用例，包括在其他不完美的AI系统中将其用作组件模型。重要的是，我们根据著名的道德理论来解释Delphi的运营化，这使我们提出了重要的未来研究问题。

Explainable AI (XAI) is widely viewed as a sine qua non for ever-expanding AI research. A better understanding of the needs of XAI users, as well as human-centered evaluations of explainable models are both a necessity and a challenge. In this paper, we explore how HCI and AI researchers conduct user studies in XAI applications based on a systematic literature review. After identifying and thoroughly analyzing 85 core papers with human-based XAI evaluations over the past five years, we categorize them along the measured characteristics of explanatory methods, namely trust, understanding, fairness, usability, and human-AI team performance. Our research shows that XAI is spreading more rapidly in certain application domains, such as recommender systems than in others, but that user evaluations are still rather sparse and incorporate hardly any insights from cognitive or social sciences. Based on a comprehensive discussion of best practices, i.e., common models, design choices, and measures in user studies, we propose practical guidelines on designing and conducting user studies for XAI researchers and practitioners. Lastly, this survey also highlights several open research directions, particularly linking psychological science and human-centered XAI.

我们介绍了Sparrow，这是一个寻求信息的对话代理，与提示的语言模型基线相比，训练有素，更有帮助，正确和无害。我们使用从人类反馈中的强化学习来培训我们的模型，以帮助人类评估者判断代理人的行为。首先，为了使我们的代理人更有帮助和无害，我们将良好对话的要求分解为代理人应遵循的自然语言规则，并分别向评估者询问每个规则。我们证明，这种崩溃使我们能够收集对代理行为的更多针对性的人类判断，并允许更有效的规则条件奖励模型。其次，我们的代理商在收集对模型声明的偏好判决时提供了支持事实主张的来源的证据。对于事实问题，麻雀提供的证据支持了78％的时间。比基线比基线更享受麻雀，同时对人类的对抗性探测更具弹性，在探测时只有8％的时间违反了我们的规则。最后，我们进行了广泛的分析，表明尽管我们的模型学会遵守我们的规则，但它可以表现出分布偏见。

This study evaluated the ability of ChatGPT, a recently developed artificial intelligence (AI) agent, to perform high-level cognitive tasks and produce text that is indistinguishable from human-generated text. This capacity raises concerns about the potential use of ChatGPT as a tool for academic misconduct in online exams. The study found that ChatGPT is capable of exhibiting critical thinking skills and generating highly realistic text with minimal input, making it a potential threat to the integrity of online exams, particularly in tertiary education settings where such exams are becoming more prevalent. Returning to invigilated and oral exams could form part of the solution, while using advanced proctoring techniques and AI-text output detectors may be effective in addressing this issue, they are not likely to be foolproof solutions. Further research is needed to fully understand the implications of large language models like ChatGPT and to devise strategies for combating the risk of cheating using these tools. It is crucial for educators and institutions to be aware of the possibility of ChatGPT being used for cheating and to investigate measures to address it in order to maintain the fairness and validity of online exams for all students.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation, but the quality bar for medical and clinical applications is high. Today, attempts to assess models' clinical knowledge typically rely on automated evaluations on limited benchmarks. There is no standard to evaluate model predictions and reasoning across a breadth of tasks. To address this, we present MultiMedQA, a benchmark combining six existing open question answering datasets spanning professional medical exams, research, and consumer queries; and HealthSearchQA, a new free-response dataset of medical questions searched online. We propose a framework for human evaluation of model answers along multiple axes including factuality, precision, possible harm, and bias. In addition, we evaluate PaLM (a 540-billion parameter LLM) and its instruction-tuned variant, Flan-PaLM, on MultiMedQA. Using a combination of prompting strategies, Flan-PaLM achieves state-of-the-art accuracy on every MultiMedQA multiple-choice dataset (MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, MMLU clinical topics), including 67.6% accuracy on MedQA (US Medical License Exam questions), surpassing prior state-of-the-art by over 17%. However, human evaluation reveals key gaps in Flan-PaLM responses. To resolve this we introduce instruction prompt tuning, a parameter-efficient approach for aligning LLMs to new domains using a few exemplars. The resulting model, Med-PaLM, performs encouragingly, but remains inferior to clinicians. We show that comprehension, recall of knowledge, and medical reasoning improve with model scale and instruction prompt tuning, suggesting the potential utility of LLMs in medicine. Our human evaluations reveal important limitations of today's models, reinforcing the importance of both evaluation frameworks and method development in creating safe, helpful LLM models for clinical applications.

在数字治疗干预的背景下，例如互联网交付的认知行为治疗（ICBT）用于治疗抑郁和焦虑，广泛的研究表明，人类支持者或教练的参与如何协助接受治疗的人，改善用户参与治疗并导致更有效的健康结果而不是不受支持的干预措施。该研究旨在最大限度地提高这一人类支持的影响和结果，研究了通过AI和机器学习领域（ML）领域的最新进展提供的新机遇如何有助于有效地支持ICBT支持者的工作实践。本文报告了采访研究的详细调查结果，与15个ICBT支持者加深了解其现有的工作实践和信息需求，旨在有意义地向抑郁和焦虑治疗的背景下提供有用，可实现的ML申请。分析贡献（1）一组六个主题，总结了ICBT支持者在为其精神卫生客户提供有效，个性化反馈方面的策略和挑战;并回应这些学习，（2）对于ML方法如何帮助支持和解决挑战和信息需求，为每个主题提供具体机会。它依赖于在支持者LED客户审查实践中引入新的机器生成的数据见解的潜在社会，情感和务实含义的思考。

关于人类阅读的研究长期以来一直记录在阅读行为表明特定于任务的效果，但是建立一个通用模型来预测人类在给定任务中将显示什么的通用模型。我们介绍了Neat，这是人类阅读中注意力分配的计算模型，基于人类阅读优化了一项任务中关注经济和成功之间的权衡。我们的模型是使用当代神经网络建模技术实施的，并对注意力分配的分配方式在不同任务中如何变化做出明确的测试预测。我们在一项针对阅读理解任务的两个版本的眼影研究中对此进行了测试，发现我们的模型成功说明了整个任务的阅读行为。因此，我们的工作提供了证据表明，任务效果可以建模为对任务需求的最佳适应。

神经语言模型有可能支持人类写作。但是，关于其整合和对写作和产出的影响仍然存在问题。为了解决这个问题，我们设计并比较了两个用于写作的用户界面与移动设备上的AI，这些用户界面操纵主动性和控制级别：1）使用连续生成的文本编写，AI添加了逐字文字和用户转向。 2）编写建议，AI建议短语和用户从列表中选择。在监督的在线研究（n = 18）中，参与者使用了这些原型和无AI的基线。我们收集了触摸互动，关于灵感和作者的评分以及访谈数据。有了AI的建议，人们的写作不那么积极，但觉得他们是作者。连续生成的文本减少了这种感知的作者身份，但编辑行为增加了。在这两种设计中，AI都会增加文本长度，并被认为会影响措辞。我们的发现为UI设计决策对用户体验和共同创造系统的产出的影响增加了新的经验证据。

Incivility remains a major challenge for online discussion platforms, to such an extent that even conversations between well-intentioned users can often derail into uncivil behavior. Traditionally, platforms have relied on moderators to -- with or without algorithmic assistance -- take corrective actions such as removing comments or banning users. In this work we propose a complementary paradigm that directly empowers users by proactively enhancing their awareness about existing tension in the conversation they are engaging in and actively guides them as they are drafting their replies to avoid further escalation. As a proof of concept for this paradigm, we design an algorithmic tool that provides such proactive information directly to users, and conduct a user study in a popular discussion platform. Through a mixed methods approach combining surveys with a randomized controlled experiment, we uncover qualitative and quantitative insights regarding how the participants utilize and react to this information. Most participants report finding this proactive paradigm valuable, noting that it helps them to identify tension that they may have otherwise missed and prompts them to further reflect on their own replies and to revise them. These effects are corroborated by a comparison of how the participants draft their reply when our tool warns them that their conversation is at risk of derailing into uncivil behavior versus in a control condition where the tool is disabled. These preliminary findings highlight the potential of this user-centered paradigm and point to concrete directions for future implementations.