arXiv subjects

Jenny Liang

Publications and source records attributed to Jenny Liang.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

EDIT-Bench: Evaluating LLM Abilities to Perform Real-World Instructed Code Edits

Instructed code editing, where LLMs directly modify a developer's existing code based on a user instruction, is becoming a widely used interaction mode in AI coding assistants. However, few benchmarks directly evaluate this capability and current datasets often rely on artificial sources. We introduce EDIT-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM code editing capabilities grounded in real-world usage, i.e., user instructions and code contexts collected in the wild. EDIT-Bench comprises of 540 problems, multiple natural and programming languages, and a diverse set of real-world use cases, ranging from resolving errors to adding features. EDIT-Bench introduces context-dependent problems that require the model to understand code context, highlighted code, and cursor position in addition to the user instruction. We evaluate 40 diverse LLMs and observe that EDIT-Bench is a challenging set of problems where only 1 model scores over 60%. We find that model performance varies across different categories of user instructions. Further, we find that varying levels of contextual information greatly affect task success rate, with performance varying up to 11%, indicating the importance of evaluating with realistic context.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits

General purpose AI, such as ChatGPT, seems to have lowered the barriers for the public to use AI and harness its power. However, the governance and development of AI still remain in the hands of a few, and the pace of development is accelerating without a comprehensive assessment of risks. As a first step towards democratic risk assessment and design of general purpose AI, we introduce PARTICIP-AI, a carefully designed framework for laypeople to speculate and assess AI use cases and their impacts. Our framework allows us to study more nuanced and detailed public opinions on AI through collecting use cases, surfacing diverse harms through risk assessment under alternate scenarios (i.e., developing and not developing a use case), and illuminating tensions over AI development through making a concluding choice on its development. To showcase the promise of our framework towards informing democratic AI development, we run a medium-scale study with inputs from 295 demographically diverse participants. Our analyses show that participants' responses emphasize applications for personal life and society, contrasting with most current AI development's business focus. We also surface diverse set of envisioned harms such as distrust in AI and institutions, complementary to those defined by experts. Furthermore, we found that perceived impact of not developing use cases significantly predicted participants' judgements of whether AI use cases should be developed, and highlighted lay users' concerns of techno-solutionism. We conclude with a discussion on how frameworks like PARTICIP-AI can further guide democratic AI development and governance.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

Can Machines Learn Morality? The Delphi Experiment

As AI systems become increasingly powerful and pervasive, there are growing concerns about machines' morality or a lack thereof. Yet, teaching morality to machines is a formidable task, as morality remains among the most intensely debated questions in humanity, let alone for AI. Existing AI systems deployed to millions of users, however, are already making decisions loaded with moral implications, which poses a seemingly impossible challenge: teaching machines moral sense, while humanity continues to grapple with it. To explore this challenge, we introduce Delphi, an experimental framework based on deep neural networks trained directly to reason about descriptive ethical judgments, e.g., "helping a friend" is generally good, while "helping a friend spread fake news" is not. Empirical results shed novel insights on the promises and limits of machine ethics; Delphi demonstrates strong generalization capabilities in the face of novel ethical situations, while off-the-shelf neural network models exhibit markedly poor judgment including unjust biases, confirming the need for explicitly teaching machines moral sense. Yet, Delphi is not perfect, exhibiting susceptibility to pervasive biases and inconsistencies. Despite that, we demonstrate positive use cases of imperfect Delphi, including using it as a component model within other imperfect AI systems. Importantly, we interpret the operationalization of Delphi in light of prominent ethical theories, which leads us to important future research questions.

cs.CL↗