Improved emotional alignment of ai and humans: Human ratings of emotions expressed by stable diffusion v1, dall-e 2, and dall-e 3
Abstract
Generative AI systems are increasingly capable of expressing emotions via text and imagery. Effective emotional expression will likely play a major role in the efficacy of AI systems -- particularly those designed to support human mental health and wellbeing. This motivates our present research to better understand the alignment of AI expressed emotions with the human perception of emotions. When AI tries to express a particular emotion, how might we assess whether they are successful? To answer this question, we designed a survey to measure the alignment between emotions expressed by generative AI and human perceptions. Three generative image models (DALL-E 2, DALL-E 3 and Stable Diffusion v1) were used to generate 240 examples of images, each of which was based on a prompt designed to express five positive and five negative emotions across both humans and robots. 24 participants recruited from the Prolific website rated the alignment of AI-generated emotional expressions with a text prompt used to generate the emotion (i.e., "A robot expressing the emotion amusement"). The results of our evaluation suggest that generative AI models are indeed capable of producing emotional expressions that are well-aligned with a range of human emotions; however, we show that the alignment significantly depends upon the AI model used and the emotion itself. We analyze variations in the performance of these systems to identify gaps for future improvement. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for future AI systems designed to support mental health and wellbeing.
Study specs
- Authors
- JD Lomas,W van der Maden
- Institution
- Delft University of Technology,Microsoft Research
- Discipline
- Artificial Intelligence
- Year
- 2024
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.