Despite growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) in healthcare, current explorations do not assess the real-world utility and safety of LLMs in clinical settings. Our objective was to determine whether two LLMs can serve information needs submitted by physicians as questions to an informatics consultation service in a safe and concordant manner. Sixty six questions from an informatics consult service were submitted to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 via simple prompts. 12 physicians assessed the LLM responses' possibility of patient harm and concordance with existing reports from an informatics consultation service. Physician assessments were summarized based on majority vote. For no questions did a majority of physicians deem either LLM response as harmful. For GPT-3.5, responses to 8 questions were concordant with the informatics consult report, 20 discordant, and 9 were unable to be assessed. There were 29 responses with no majority on "Agree", "Disagree", and "Unable to assess". For GPT-4, responses to 13 questions were concordant, 15 discordant, and 3 were unable to be assessed. There were 35 responses with no majority. Responses from both LLMs were largely devoid of overt harm, but less than 20% of the responses agreed with an answer from an informatics consultation service, responses contained hallucinated references, and physicians were divided on what constitutes harm. These results suggest that while general purpose LLMs are able to provide safe and credible responses, they often do not meet the specific information need of a given question. A definitive evaluation of the usefulness of LLMs in healthcare settings will likely require additional research on prompt engineering, calibration, and custom-tailoring of general purpose models.
Recently, the ChatGPT LLM has received great attention: it can be used as a bot for discussing source code, prompting it to suggest changes, provide descriptions or even generate code. Typical demonstrations generally focus on existing benchmarks, which may have been used in model training (i.e., data leakage). To assess the feasibility of using an LLM as a useful assistant bot for programmers, we must assess its realistic capabilities on unseen problems as well as its capabilities on various tasks. In this paper, we present an empirical study of ChatGPT's potential as a fully automated programming assistant, focusing on the tasks of code generation, program repair, and code summariziation. The study investigates ChatGPT's performance on common programming problems and compares it with state-of-the-art approaches on two benchmarks. Among several findings, our study shows that ChatGPT is effective in dealing with common programming problems. However, our experiments also reveal limitations in terms of its attention span: detailed descriptions will constrain the focus of ChatGPT and prevent it from leveraging its vast knowledge to solve the actual problem. Surprisingly, we have identified the ability of ChatGPT to reason the original intention of the code. We expect future work to build on this insight for dealing with the open question of the oracle problem. Our findings contribute interesting insights to the development of LLMs for programming assistance, notably by demonstrating the importance of prompt engineering, and providing a better understanding of ChatGPT's practical applications for software engineering.
Large language models (LLMs) are transforming research on machine learning while galvanizing public debates. Understanding not only when these models work well and succeed but also why they fail and misbehave is of great societal relevance. We propose to turn the lens of psychiatry, a framework used to describe and modify maladaptive behavior, to the outputs produced by these models. We focus on twelve established LLMs and subject them to a questionnaire commonly used in psychiatry. Our results show that six of the latest LLMs respond robustly to the anxiety questionnaire, producing comparable anxiety scores to humans. Moreover, the LLMs' responses can be predictably changed by using anxiety-inducing prompts. Anxiety-induction not only influences LLMs' scores on an anxiety questionnaire but also influences their behavior in a previously-established benchmark measuring biases such as racism and ageism. Importantly, greater anxiety-inducing text leads to stronger increases in biases, suggesting that how anxiously a prompt is communicated to large language models has a strong influence on their behavior in applied settings. These results demonstrate the usefulness of methods taken from psychiatry for studying the capable algorithms to which we increasingly delegate authority and autonomy.
Sequence-to-sequence models have been used to transform erroneous programs into correct ones when trained with a large enough dataset. Some recent studies also demonstrated strong empirical evidence that code review could improve the program repair further. Large language models, trained with Natural Language (NL) and Programming Language (PL), can contain inherent knowledge of both. In this study, we investigate if this inherent knowledge of PL and NL can be utilized to improve automated program repair. We applied PLBART and CodeT5, two state-of-the-art language models that are pre-trained with both PL and NL, on two such natural language-based program repair datasets and found that the pre-trained language models fine-tuned with datasets containing both code review and subsequent code changes notably outperformed each of the previous models. With the advent of code generative models like Codex and GPT-3.5-Turbo, we also performed zero-shot and few-shots learning-based prompt engineering to assess their performance on these datasets. However, the practical application of using LLMs in the context of automated program repair is still a long way off based on our manual analysis of the generated repaired codes by the learning models.
Utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) for complex tasks is challenging, often involving a time-consuming and uncontrollable prompt engineering process. This paper introduces a novel human-LLM interaction framework, Low-code LLM. It incorporates six types of simple low-code visual programming interactions to achieve more controllable and stable responses. Through visual interaction with a graphical user interface, users can incorporate their ideas into the process without writing trivial prompts. The proposed Low-code LLM framework consists of a Planning LLM that designs a structured planning workflow for complex tasks, which can be correspondingly edited and confirmed by users through low-code visual programming operations, and an Executing LLM that generates responses following the user-confirmed workflow. We highlight three advantages of the low-code LLM: user-friendly interaction, controllable generation, and wide applicability. We demonstrate its benefits using four typical applications. By introducing this framework, we aim to bridge the gap between humans and LLMs, enabling more effective and efficient utilization of LLMs for complex tasks. The code, prompts, and experimental details are available at https://github.com/moymix/TaskMatrix/tree/main/LowCodeLLM. A system demonstration video can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb2C1vaeO3E.
Large Language Models (LLM) are a new class of computation engines, "programmed" via prompt engineering. We are still learning how to best "program" these LLMs to help developers. We start with the intuition that developers tend to consciously and unconsciously have a collection of semantics facts in mind when working on coding tasks. Mostly these are shallow, simple facts arising from a quick read. For a function, examples of facts might include parameter and local variable names, return expressions, simple pre- and post-conditions, and basic control and data flow, etc. One might assume that the powerful multi-layer architecture of transformer-style LLMs makes them inherently capable of doing this simple level of "code analysis" and extracting such information, implicitly, while processing code: but are they, really? If they aren't, could explicitly adding this information help? Our goal here is to investigate this question, using the code summarization task and evaluate whether automatically augmenting an LLM's prompt with semantic facts explicitly, actually helps. Prior work shows that LLM performance on code summarization benefits from few-shot samples drawn either from the same-project or from examples found via information retrieval methods (such as BM25). While summarization performance has steadily increased since the early days, there is still room for improvement: LLM performance on code summarization still lags its performance on natural-language tasks like translation and text summarization. We find that adding semantic facts actually does help! This approach improves performance in several different settings suggested by prior work, including for two different Large Language Models. In most cases, improvement nears or exceeds 2 BLEU; for the PHP language in the challenging CodeSearchNet dataset, this augmentation actually yields performance surpassing 30 BLEU.
GPT-3 and several other language models (LMs) can effectively address various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, including machine translation and text summarization. Recently, they have also been successfully employed in the business process management (BPM) domain, e.g., for predictive process monitoring and process extraction from text. This, however, typically requires fine-tuning the employed LM, which, among others, necessitates large amounts of suitable training data. A possible solution to this problem is the use of prompt engineering, which leverages pre-trained LMs without fine-tuning them. Recognizing this, we argue that prompt engineering can help bring the capabilities of LMs to BPM research. We use this position paper to develop a research agenda for the use of prompt engineering for BPM research by identifying the associated potentials and challenges.
Prompt engineering and calibration make large language models excel at reasoning tasks, including multiple choice commonsense reasoning. From a practical perspective, we investigate and evaluate these strategies on smaller language models. Through experiments on five commonsense reasoning benchmarks, we find that each strategy favors certain models, but their joint effects are mostly negative.
Large-scale Vision-Language Models, such as CLIP, learn powerful image-text representations that have found numerous applications, from zero-shot classification to text-to-image generation. Despite that, their capabilities for solving novel discriminative tasks via prompting fall behind those of large language models, such as GPT-3. Here we explore the idea of visual prompt engineering for solving computer vision tasks beyond classification by editing in image space instead of text. In particular, we discover an emergent ability of CLIP, where, by simply drawing a red circle around an object, we can direct the model's attention to that region, while also maintaining global information. We show the power of this simple approach by achieving state-of-the-art in zero-shot referring expressions comprehension and strong performance in keypoint localization tasks. Finally, we draw attention to some potential ethical concerns of large language-vision models.
The latest large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, exhibit strong capabilities in automated mental health analysis. However, existing relevant studies bear several limitations, including inadequate evaluations, lack of prompting strategies, and ignorance of exploring LLMs for explainability. To bridge these gaps, we comprehensively evaluate the mental health analysis and emotional reasoning ability of LLMs on 11 datasets across 5 tasks. We explore the effects of different prompting strategies with unsupervised and distantly supervised emotional information. Based on these prompts, we explore LLMs for interpretable mental health analysis by instructing them to generate explanations for each of their decisions. We convey strict human evaluations to assess the quality of the generated explanations, leading to a novel dataset with 163 human-assessed explanations. We benchmark existing automatic evaluation metrics on this dataset to guide future related works. According to the results, ChatGPT shows strong in-context learning ability but still has a significant gap with advanced task-specific methods. Careful prompt engineering with emotional cues and expert-written few-shot examples can also effectively improve performance on mental health analysis. In addition, ChatGPT generates explanations that approach human performance, showing its great potential in explainable mental health analysis.
Tags are pivotal in facilitating the effective distribution of multimedia content in various applications in the contemporary Internet era, such as search engines and recommendation systems. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across a wide range of tasks. In this work, we propose TagGPT, a fully automated system capable of tag extraction and multimodal tagging in a completely zero-shot fashion. Our core insight is that, through elaborate prompt engineering, LLMs are able to extract and reason about proper tags given textual clues of multimodal data, e.g., OCR, ASR, title, etc. Specifically, to automatically build a high-quality tag set that reflects user intent and interests for a specific application, TagGPT predicts large-scale candidate tags from a series of raw data via prompting LLMs, filtered with frequency and semantics. Given a new entity that needs tagging for distribution, TagGPT introduces two alternative options for zero-shot tagging, i.e., a generative method with late semantic matching with the tag set, and another selective method with early matching in prompts. It is well noticed that TagGPT provides a system-level solution based on a modular framework equipped with a pre-trained LLM (GPT-3.5 used here) and a sentence embedding model (SimCSE used here), which can be seamlessly replaced with any more advanced one you want. TagGPT is applicable for various modalities of data in modern social media and showcases strong generalization ability to a wide range of applications. We evaluate TagGPT on publicly available datasets, i.e., Kuaishou and Food.com, and demonstrate the effectiveness of TagGPT compared to existing hashtags and off-the-shelf taggers. Project page: https://github.com/TencentARC/TagGPT.
Large language models have revolutionized the field of artificial intelligence and have been used in various applications. Among these models, ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) has been developed by OpenAI, it stands out as a powerful tool that has been widely adopted. ChatGPT has been successfully applied in numerous areas, including chatbots, content generation, language translation, personalized recommendations, and even medical diagnosis and treatment. Its success in these applications can be attributed to its ability to generate human-like responses, understand natural language, and adapt to different contexts. Its versatility and accuracy make it a powerful tool for natural language processing (NLP). However, there are also limitations to ChatGPT, such as its tendency to produce biased responses and its potential to perpetuate harmful language patterns. This article provides a comprehensive overview of ChatGPT, its applications, advantages, and limitations. Additionally, the paper emphasizes the importance of ethical considerations when using this robust tool in real-world scenarios. Finally, This paper contributes to ongoing discussions surrounding artificial intelligence and its impact on vision and NLP domains by providing insights into prompt engineering techniques.
The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs), such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, could revolutionize various industries, including geotechnical engineering. However, GPT models can sometimes generate plausible-sounding but false outputs, leading to hallucinations. In this article, we discuss the importance of prompt engineering in mitigating these risks and harnessing the full potential of GPT for geotechnical applications. We explore the challenges and pitfalls associated with LLMs and highlight the role of context in ensuring accurate and valuable responses. Furthermore, we examine the development of context-specific search engines and the potential of LLMs to become a natural interface for complex tasks, such as data analysis and design. We also develop a unified interface using natural language to handle complex geotechnical engineering tasks and data analysis. By integrating GPT into geotechnical engineering workflows, professionals can streamline their work and develop sustainable and resilient infrastructure systems for the future.
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive ability in biomedical question-answering, but have not been adequately investigated for more specific biomedical applications. This study investigates the performance of LLMs such as the ChatGPT family of models (GPT-3.5s, GPT-4) in biomedical tasks beyond question-answering. Because no patient data can be passed to the OpenAI API public interface, we evaluated model performance with over 10000 samples as proxies for two fundamental tasks in the clinical domain - classification and reasoning. The first task is classifying whether statements of clinical and policy recommendations in scientific literature constitute health advice. The second task is causal relation detection from the biomedical literature. We compared LLMs with simpler models, such as bag-of-words (BoW) with logistic regression, and fine-tuned BioBERT models. Despite the excitement around viral ChatGPT, we found that fine-tuning for two fundamental NLP tasks remained the best strategy. The simple BoW model performed on par with the most complex LLM prompting. Prompt engineering required significant investment.
Can safety analysis make use of Large Language Models (LLMs)? A case study explores Systems Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) applied to Automatic Emergency Brake (AEB) and Electricity Demand Side Management (DSM) systems using ChatGPT. We investigate how collaboration schemes, input semantic complexity, and prompt guidelines influence STPA results. Comparative results show that using ChatGPT without human intervention may be inadequate due to reliability related issues, but with careful design, it may outperform human experts. No statistically significant differences are found when varying the input semantic complexity or using common prompt guidelines, which suggests the necessity for developing domain-specific prompt engineering. We also highlight future challenges, including concerns about LLM trustworthiness and the necessity for standardisation and regulation in this domain.
Without writing a single line of code by a human, an example Monte Carlo simulation based application for stochastic dependence modeling with copulas is developed using a state-of-the-art large language model (LLM) fine-tuned for conversations. This includes interaction with ChatGPT in natural language and using mathematical formalism, which, under careful supervision by a human-expert, led to producing a working code in MATLAB, Python and R for sampling from a given copula model, evaluation of the model's density, performing maximum likelihood estimation, optimizing the code for parallel computing for CPUs as well as for GPUs, and visualization of the computed results. In contrast to other emerging studies that assess the accuracy of LLMs like ChatGPT on tasks from a selected area, this work rather investigates ways how to achieve a successful solution of a standard statistical task in a collaboration of a human-expert and artificial intelligence (AI). Particularly, through careful prompt engineering, we separate successful solutions generated by ChatGPT from unsuccessful ones, resulting in a comprehensive list of related pros and cons. It is demonstrated that if the typical pitfalls are avoided, we can substantially benefit from collaborating with an AI partner. For example, we show that if ChatGPT is not able to provide a correct solution due to a lack of or incorrect knowledge, the human-expert can feed it with the correct knowledge, e.g., in the form of mathematical theorems and formulas, and make it to apply the gained knowledge in order to provide a solution that is correct. Such ability presents an attractive opportunity to achieve a programmed solution even for users with rather limited knowledge of programming techniques.
Increase in computational scale and fine-tuning has seen a dramatic improvement in the quality of outputs of large language models (LLMs) like GPT. Given that both GPT-3 and GPT-4 were trained on large quantities of human-generated text, we might ask to what extent their outputs reflect patterns of human thinking, both for correct and incorrect cases. The Erotetic Theory of Reason (ETR) provides a symbolic generative model of both human success and failure in thinking, across propositional, quantified, and probabilistic reasoning, as well as decision-making. We presented GPT-3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 with 61 central inference and judgment problems from a recent book-length presentation of ETR, consisting of experimentally verified data-points on human judgment and extrapolated data-points predicted by ETR, with correct inference patterns as well as fallacies and framing effects (the ETR61 benchmark). ETR61 includes classics like Wason's card task, illusory inferences, the decoy effect, and opportunity-cost neglect, among others. GPT-3 showed evidence of ETR-predicted outputs for 59% of these examples, rising to 77% in GPT-3.5 and 75% in GPT-4. Remarkably, the production of human-like fallacious judgments increased from 18% in GPT-3 to 33% in GPT-3.5 and 34% in GPT-4. This suggests that larger and more advanced LLMs may develop a tendency toward more human-like mistakes, as relevant thought patterns are inherent in human-produced training data. According to ETR, the same fundamental patterns are involved both in successful and unsuccessful ordinary reasoning, so that the "bad" cases could paradoxically be learned from the "good" cases. We further present preliminary evidence that ETR-inspired prompt engineering could reduce instances of these mistakes.
The rise of advanced chatbots, such as ChatGPT, has sparked curiosity in the scientific community. ChatGPT is a general-purpose chatbot powered by large language models (LLMs) GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, with the potential to impact numerous fields, including computational biology. In this article, we offer ten tips based on our experience with ChatGPT to assist computational biologists in optimizing their workflows. We have collected relevant prompts and reviewed the nascent literature in the field, compiling tips we project to remain pertinent for future ChatGPT and LLM iterations, ranging from code refactoring to scientific writing to prompt engineering. We hope our work will help bioinformaticians to complement their workflows while staying aware of the various implications of using this technology. Additionally, to track new and creative applications for bioinformatics tools such as ChatGPT, we have established a GitHub repository at https://github.com/csbl-br/awesome-compbio-chatgpt. Our belief is that ethical adherence to ChatGPT and other LLMs will increase the efficiency of computational biologists, ultimately advancing the pace of scientific discovery in the life sciences.
Objective: This study quantifies the capabilities of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 for clinical named entity recognition (NER) tasks and proposes task-specific prompts to improve their performance. Materials and Methods: We evaluated these models on two clinical NER tasks: (1) to extract medical problems, treatments, and tests from clinical notes in the MTSamples corpus, following the 2010 i2b2 concept extraction shared task, and (2) identifying nervous system disorder-related adverse events from safety reports in the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS). To improve the GPT models' performance, we developed a clinical task-specific prompt framework that includes (1) baseline prompts with task description and format specification, (2) annotation guideline-based prompts, (3) error analysis-based instructions, and (4) annotated samples for few-shot learning. We assessed each prompt's effectiveness and compared the models to BioClinicalBERT. Results: Using baseline prompts, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 achieved relaxed F1 scores of 0.634, 0.804 for MTSamples, and 0.301, 0.593 for VAERS. Additional prompt components consistently improved model performance. When all four components were used, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 achieved relaxed F1 socres of 0.794, 0.861 for MTSamples and 0.676, 0.736 for VAERS, demonstrating the effectiveness of our prompt framework. Although these results trail BioClinicalBERT (F1 of 0.901 for the MTSamples dataset and 0.802 for the VAERS), it is very promising considering few training samples are needed. Conclusion: While direct application of GPT models to clinical NER tasks falls short of optimal performance, our task-specific prompt framework, incorporating medical knowledge and training samples, significantly enhances GPT models' feasibility for potential clinical applications.
The Object Constraint Language (OCL) is a declarative language that adds constraints and object query expressions to MOF models. Despite its potential to provide precision and conciseness to UML models, the unfamiliar syntax of OCL has hindered its adoption. Recent advancements in LLMs, such as GPT-3, have shown their capability in many NLP tasks, including semantic parsing and text generation. Codex, a GPT-3 descendant, has been fine-tuned on publicly available code from GitHub and can generate code in many programming languages. We investigate the reliability of OCL constraints generated by Codex from natural language specifications. To achieve this, we compiled a dataset of 15 UML models and 168 specifications and crafted a prompt template with slots to populate with UML information and the target task, using both zero- and few-shot learning methods. By measuring the syntactic validity and execution accuracy metrics of the generated OCL constraints, we found that enriching the prompts with UML information and enabling few-shot learning increases the reliability of the generated OCL constraints. Furthermore, the results reveal a close similarity based on sentence embedding between the generated OCL constraints and the human-written ones in the ground truth, implying a level of clarity and understandability in the generated OCL constraints by Codex.