Exploring Human-LLM Conversations: Mental Models and the Originator of Toxicity
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
This study explores real-world human interactions with large language models (LLMs) in diverse, unconstrained settings in contrast to most prior research focusing on ethically trimmed models like ChatGPT for specific tasks. We aim to understand the originator of toxicity. Our findings show that although LLMs are rightfully accused of providing toxic content, it is mostly demanded or at least provoked by humans who actively seek such content. Our manual analysis of hundreds of conversations judged as toxic by APIs commercial vendors, also raises questions with respect to current practices of what user requests are refused to answer. Furthermore, we conjecture based on multiple empirical indicators that humans exhibit a change of their mental model, switching from the mindset of interacting with a machine more towards interacting with a human.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jul 2024.
Builds on
22 of 56 references.
References · 22
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2023OpenAssistant Conversations -- Democratizing Large Language Model Alignmentcited by 712
- 2024WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wildcited by 598
- 2023LMSYS-Chat-1M: A Large-Scale Real-World LLM Conversation Datasetcited by 449
- 2018The Design and Implementation of XiaoIce, an Empathetic Social Chatbotcited by 172
- 2023Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) 2.0: A Manifesto of Open Challenges and Interdisciplinary Research Directionscited by 123
- 2013A Computational Approach to Politeness with Application to Social Factorscited by 104
- 2017Deceiving Google's Perspective API Built for Detecting Toxic Commentscited by 99
- 2024Datasets for Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 69
- 2023"It's Weird That it Knows What I Want": Usability and Interactions with Copilot for Novice Programmerscited by 62
- 2022Handling Bias in Toxic Speech Detection: A Surveycited by 60
- 2024Determinants of LLM-assisted Decision-Makingcited by 55
10 more
- 2024People cannot distinguish GPT-4 from a human in a Turing testcited by 46
- 2023The Shifted and The Overlooked: A Task-oriented Investigation of User-GPT Interactionscited by 45
- 2023On the Challenges of Using Black-Box APIs for Toxicity Evaluation in Researchcited by 44
- 2024A Taxonomy for Human-LLM Interaction Modes: An Initial Explorationcited by 38
- 2023Impact of Guidance and Interaction Strategies for LLM Use on Learner Performance and Perceptioncited by 19
- 2023Does ChatGPT have Theory of Mind?cited by 16
- 2023Negotiating with LLMS: Prompt Hacks, Skill Gaps, and Reasoning Deficitscited by 16
- 2023Investigating Agency of LLMs in Human-AI Collaboration Taskscited by 15
- 2023An HCI-Centric Survey and Taxonomy of Human-Generative-AI Interactionscited by 9
- 2024A Linguistic Comparison between Human and ChatGPT-Generated Conversationscited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3.
4 papers.
- 2024Acceptable Use Policies for Foundation Modelscited by 12
- 2025Consistency of Responses and Continuations Generated by Large Language Models on Social Mediacited by 7
- 2025OpenEthics: A Comprehensive Ethical Evaluation of Open-Source Generative Large Language Modelscited by 0
- 2025The Limits of Goal-Setting Theory in LLM-Driven Assessmentcited by 0
- 2025The Limits of Goal-Setting Theory in LLM-Driven Assessment8 Oct 2025
- 2025OpenEthics: A Comprehensive Ethical Evaluation of Open-Source Generative Large Language Models21 May 2025
- 2025Consistency of Responses and Continuations Generated by Large Language Models on Social Media14 Jan 2025
- 2024Acceptable Use Policies for Foundation Models29 Aug 2024