Paper by Vincent Conitzer, et al: “Foundation models such as GPT-4 are fine-tuned to avoid unsafe or otherwise problematic behavior, so that, for example, they refuse to comply with requests for help with committing crimes or with producing racist text. One approach to fine-tuning, called reinforcement learning from human feedback, learns from humans’ expressed preferences over multiple outputs. Another approach is constitutional AI, in which the input from humans is a list of high-level principles. But how do we deal with potentially diverging input from humans? How can we aggregate the input into consistent data about ”collective” preferences or otherwise use it to make collective choices about model behavior? In this paper, we argue that the field of social choice is well positioned to address these questions…(More)”.
How to contribute:
Did you come across – or create – a compelling project/report/book/app at the leading edge of innovation in governance?
Share it with us at info@thelivinglib.org so that we can add it to the Collection!
About the Curator
Get the latest news right in you inbox
Subscribe to curated findings and actionable knowledge from The Living Library, delivered to your inbox every Friday
Related articles
collective intelligence, PEOPLE
Everyone, everywhere, all at once LLMs and the new physics of collective intelligence
Posted in August 30, 2025 by Stefaan Verhulst
citizen engagement, PEOPLE
Leveraging LLMs for Privacy-Aware Predictions in Participatory Budgeting
Posted in August 12, 2025 by Stefaan Verhulst
citizen engagement, PEOPLE
Alternates, Assemble! Selecting Optimal Alternates for Citizens’ Assemblies
Posted in August 11, 2025 by Stefaan Verhulst