An official website of the United States government
BackgroundLaypeople have easy access to health information through large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, and search engines, such as Google. Search engines transformed health information access, and LLMs offer a new avenue for answering laypeople’s questions. ObjectiveWe aimed to compare the frequency of use and attitudes toward LLMs and search engines as well as their comparative relevance, usefulness, ease of use, and trustworthiness in responding to health queries. MethodsWe conducted a screening survey to compare the demographics of LLM users and nonusers seeking health information, analyzing results with logistic regression. LLM users from the screening survey were invited to a follow-up survey to report the types of health information they sought. We compared the frequency of use of LLMs and search engines using ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests. Lastly, paired-sample Wilcoxon tests compared LLMs and search engines on perceived usefulness, ease of use, trustworthiness, feelings, bias, and anthropomorphism. ResultsIn total, 2002 US participants recruited on Prolific participated in the screening survey about the use of LLMs and search engines. Of them, 52% (n=1045) of the participants were female, with a mean age of 39 (SD 13) years. Participants were 9.7% (n=194) Asian, 12.1% (n=242) Black, 73.3% (n=1467) White, 1.1% (n=22) Hispanic, and 3.8% (n=77) were of other races and ethnicities. Further, 1913 (95.6%) used search engines to look up health queries versus 642 (32.6%) for LLMs. Men had higher odds (odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% CI 1.34-1.99; P<.001) of using LLMs for health questions than women. Black (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.42-2.54; P<.001) and Asian (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.19-2.30; P<.01) individuals had higher odds than White individuals. Those with excellent perceived health (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.1-1.93; P=.01) were more likely to use LLMs than those with good health. Higher technical proficiency increased the likelihood of LLM use (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.14-1.39; P<.001). In a follow-up survey of 281 LLM users for health, most participants used search engines first (n=174, 62%) to answer health questions, but the second most common first source consulted was LLMs (n=39, 14%). LLMs were perceived as less useful (P<.01) and less relevant (P=.07), but elicited fewer negative feelings (P<.001), appeared more human (LLM: n=160, vs search: n=32), and were seen as less biased (P<.001). Trust (P=.56) and ease of use (P=.27) showed no differences. ConclusionsSearch engines are the primary source of health information; yet, positive perceptions of LLMs suggest growing use. Future work could explore whether LLM trust and usefulness are enhanced by supplementing answers with external references and limiting persuasive language to curb overreliance. Collaboration with health organizations can help improve the quality of LLMs’ health output.
more »
« less
Large Language Models Help Humans Verify Truthfulness -- Except When They Are Convincingly Wrong
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for accessing information on the web. Their truthfulness and factuality are thus of great interest. To help users make the right decisions about the information they get, LLMs should not only provide information but also help users fact-check it. Our experiments with 80 crowdworkers compare language models with search engines (information retrieval systems) at facilitating fact-checking. We prompt LLMs to validate a given claim and provide corresponding explanations. Users reading LLM explanations are significantly more efficient than those using search engines while achieving similar accuracy. However, they over-rely on the LLMs when the explanation is wrong. To reduce over-reliance on LLMs, we ask LLMs to provide contrastive information - explain both why the claim is true and false, and then we present both sides of the explanation to users. This contrastive explanation mitigates users' over-reliance on LLMs, but cannot significantly outperform search engines. Further, showing both search engine results and LLM explanations offers no complementary benefits compared to search engines alone. Taken together, our study highlights that natural language explanations by LLMs may not be a reliable replacement for reading the retrieved passages, especially in high-stakes settings where over-relying on wrong AI explanations could lead to critical consequences.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2229885
- PAR ID:
- 10522356
- Publisher / Repository:
- 2024 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL 2024)
- Date Published:
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Mexico City, Mexico
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract As artificial intelligence systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), become increasingly integrated into decision-making processes, the ability to trust their outputs is crucial. To earn human trust, LLMs must be well calibrated such that they can accurately assess and communicate the likelihood of their predictions being correct. Whereas recent work has focused on LLMs’ internal confidence, less is understood about how effectively they convey uncertainty to users. Here we explore the calibration gap, which refers to the difference between human confidence in LLM-generated answers and the models’ actual confidence, and the discrimination gap, which reflects how well humans and models can distinguish between correct and incorrect answers. Our experiments with multiple-choice and short-answer questions reveal that users tend to overestimate the accuracy of LLM responses when provided with default explanations. Moreover, longer explanations increased user confidence, even when the extra length did not improve answer accuracy. By adjusting LLM explanations to better reflect the models’ internal confidence, both the calibration gap and the discrimination gap narrowed, significantly improving user perception of LLM accuracy. These findings underscore the importance of accurate uncertainty communication and highlight the effect of explanation length in influencing user trust in artificial-intelligence-assisted decision-making environments.more » « less
-
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly produce natural language explanations, yet these explanations often lack faithfulness, and they do not reliably reflect the evidence the model uses to decide. We introduce FaithLM, a model-agnostic framework that evaluates and improves the faithfulness of LLM explanations without token masking or task-specific heuristics. FaithLM formalizes explanation faithfulness as an intervention property: a faithful explanation should yield a prediction shift when its content is contradicted. Theoretical analysis shows that the resulting contrary-hint score is a sound and discriminative estimator of faithfulness. Building on this principle, FaithLM iteratively refines both the elicitation prompt and the explanation to maximize the measured score. Experiments on three multi-domain datasets and multiple LLM backbones demonstrate that FaithLM consistently increases faithfulness and produces explanations more aligned with human rationales than strong self-explanation baselines. These findings highlight that intervention-based evaluation, coupled with iterative optimization, provides a principled route toward faithful and reliable LLM explanations.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Automatically generated explanations of how machine learning (ML) models reason can help users understand and accept them. However, explanations can have unintended consequences: promoting over-reliance or undermining trust. This paper investigates how explanations shape users' perceptions of ML models with or without the ability to provide feedback to them: (1) does revealing model flaws increase users' desire to "fix" them; (2) does providing explanations cause users to believe - wrongly - that models are introspective, and will thus improve over time. Through two controlled experiments - varying model quality - we show how the combination of explanations and user feedback impacted perceptions, such as frustration and expectations of model improvement. Explanations without opportunity for feedback were frustrating with a lower quality model, while interactions between explanation and feedback for the higher quality model suggest that detailed feedback should not be requested without explanation. Users expected model correction, regardless of whether they provided feedback or received explanations.more » « less
-
Recent years have seen great success of large language models (LLMs) in performing many natural language processing tasks with impressive performance, including tasks that directly serve users such as question answering and text summarization. They open up unprecedented opportunities for transforming information retrieval (IR) research and applications. However, concerns such as halluciation undermine their trustworthiness, limiting their actual utility when deployed in real-world applications, especially high-stake applications where trust is vital. How can we both exploit the strengths of LLMs and mitigate any risk caused by their weaknesses when applying LLMs to IR? What are the best opportunities for us to apply LLMs to IR? What are the major challenges that we will need to address in the future to fully exploit such opportunities? Given the anticipated growth of LLMs, what will future information retrieval systems look like? Will LLMs eventually replace an IR system? In this perspective paper, we examine these questions and provide provisional answers to them. We argue that LLMs will not be able to replace search engines, and future LLMs would need to learn how to use a search engine so that they can interact with a search engine on behalf of users. We conclude with a set of promising future research directions in applying LLMs to IR.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
