  Human values are crucial to human decision-making. Value pluralism is the
view that multiple correct values may be held in tension with one another
(e.g., when considering lying to a friend to protect their feelings, how does
one balance honesty with friendship?). As statistical learners, AI systems fit
to averages by default, washing out these potentially irreducible value
conflicts. To improve AI systems to better reflect value pluralism, the
first-order challenge is to explore the extent to which AI systems can model
pluralistic human values, rights, and duties as well as their interaction.
  We introduce ValuePrism, a large-scale dataset of 218k values, rights, and
duties connected to 31k human-written situations. ValuePrism's contextualized
values are generated by GPT-4 and deemed high-quality by human annotators 91%
of the time. We conduct a large-scale study with annotators across diverse
social and demographic backgrounds to try to understand whose values are
represented.
  With ValuePrism, we build Kaleido, an open, light-weight, and structured
language-based multi-task model that generates, explains, and assesses the
relevance and valence (i.e., support or oppose) of human values, rights, and
duties within a specific context. Humans prefer the sets of values output by
our system over the teacher GPT-4, finding them more accurate and with broader
coverage. In addition, we demonstrate that Kaleido can help explain variability
in human decision-making by outputting contrasting values. Finally, we show
that Kaleido's representations transfer to other philosophical frameworks and
datasets, confirming the benefit of an explicit, modular, and interpretable
approach to value pluralism. We hope that our work will serve as a step to
making more explicit the implicit values behind human decision-making and to
steering AI systems to make decisions that are more in accordance with them.
