We focus on enhancing comprehension in small-group recorded conversations, which serve as a medium to bring people together and provide a space for sharing personal stories and experiences on crucial social matters. One way to parse and convey information from these conversations is by sharing highlighted excerpts in subsequent conversations. This can help promote a collective understanding of relevant issues, by highlighting perspectives and experiences to other groups of people who might otherwise be unfamiliar with and thus unable to relate to these experiences. The primary challenge that arises then is that excerpts taken from one conversation and shared in another setting might be missing crucial context or key elements that were previously introduced in the original conversation. This problem is exacerbated when conversations become lengthier and richer in themes and shared experiences. To address this, we explore how Large Language Models (LLMs) can enrich these excerpts by providing socially relevant context. We present approaches for effective contextualization to improve comprehension, readability, and empathy. We show significant improvements in understanding, as assessed through subjective and objective evaluations. While LLMs can offer valuable context, they struggle with capturing key social aspects. We release the Human-annotated Salient Excerpts (HSE) dataset to support future work. Additionally, we show how context-enriched excerpts can provide more focused and comprehensive conversation summaries.

Language model alignment research often attempts to ensure that models are not only helpful and harmless, but also truthful and unbiased. However, optimizing these objectives simultaneously can obscure how improving one aspect might impact the others. In this work, we focus on analyzing the relationship between two concepts essential in both language model alignment and political science: truthfulness and political bias. We train reward models on various popular truthfulness datasets and subsequently evaluate their political bias. Our findings reveal that optimizing reward models for truthfulness on these datasets tends to result in a left-leaning political bias. We also find that existing open-source reward models (i.e., those trained on standard human preference datasets) already show a similar bias and that the bias is larger for larger models. These results raise important questions about the datasets used to represent truthfulness, potential limitations of aligning models to be both truthful and politically unbiased, and what language models capture about the relationship between truth and politics.